Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasmin Begum Alias Nasrin Begum vs State Of Punjab on 10 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002937
CRM-M-38786-2023 &
connected petitions. -1-
2024:PHHC:002937
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
212 CRM-M-38786-2023
Date of Decision : January 10, 2024
JASMIN BEGUM ALIAS NASRIN BEGUM .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent
CRM-M-46923-2023
BALBIR KAUR .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent
CRM-M-52918-2023
JAGSEER SINGH .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate,
Mr.Himanshu Chhabra, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-38786-2023.
Mr.Navjot Narang, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-46923-2023.
Mr.Abhinandan Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-52918-2023.
Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab
KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral)
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002937
CRM-M-38786-2023 &
connected petitions. -2-
1. All the three petitions have been filed for grant of regular
bail, arising from a common FIR, therefore, being amenable for common
decision, same are taken up together.
2. Through the instant petitions, the petitioners craves for
indulgence of this Court for their being enlarged on regular bail, in case
FIR No. 125, dated 26.06.2023, under Sections 384, 420, 379-B and 120-
B of the IPC (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Lehra, District
Sangrur.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
3. The prosecution agency was set into motion on the
complaint, made by one Raghvir Singh, who in his allegations stated that
he is a businessman and was familiar with petitioner-Jasmin Begum
(CRM-M-38786-2023), as she was in regular contact with the
complainant and she used to contact the complainant on Whatsapp call.
On one occasion the petitioner (Jasmin Begum) contacted the
complainant on Whatsapp call, wherein, she proposed the complainant
that she can provide the complainant a girl aging about 16-17 years, and
the girl would come and meet the complainant. Upon which the
complainant refused the said proposal and said that he is not interested in
such types of practice.
4. The petitioner-Jasmin Begum, again told the complainant
that she could provide another lady aging 35 years, and stated that the
said lady is also finding someone. Despite refusal, the complainant was
taken into confidence by the petitioner-Jasmin Begum, on dated
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002937
CRM-M-38786-2023 &
connected petitions. -3-
06.06.2023, the petitioner-Jasmin Begum contacted the complainant on
Whatsapp call, and told the complainant that she is sending the said lady
to the complainant. Thereupon, one lady, who disclosed her name as
Balbir Kaur, was sent to the complainant and the complainant took that
lady to a nearby hotel, where they got intimated with each other, and
thereafter, the aforesaid lady-Balbir Kaur, was dropped at the bus stand,
by the complainant, on a request made by the lady-Balbir Kaur. After
some time, the petitioner-Jasmin Begum, told the complainant that the
aforesaid Balbir Kaur, has made a video of the complainant, while being
intimated with the lady-Balbir Kaur, and demanded money.
5. The complainant, in pursuance to save his honour and
reputation, parted with Rs.3.00 lakh, which was handed over to the
petitioner-Jasmin Begum. Thereafter, the petitioner-Jasmin Begum again
and again insisted the complainant to hand over the remaining balance
amount. The balance amount was also paid by the complainant, and while
making payment of that balance amount, the photographs were clicked by
a friend of the complainant.
6. It is further alleged by the complainant that mobile phone
through which the photographs were clicked, was also snatched by the
petitioner-Jasmin Begum.
7. On the basis of the above complaint, the instant FIR was
registered.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002937
CRM-M-38786-2023 &
connected petitions. -4-
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the instant
story of the prosecution is based upon concoctions, after due deliberation,
as there is a long delay in the registration of the FIR (supra)
9. It is further submitted that there is no legal evidence on
record to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioners. The
recovery of mobile phone from the petitioners is not sufficient to
substantiate the allegations as levelled by the complainant.
10. The next submission as made by learned counsel for
petitioners that the petitioners never blackmailed the complainant.
11. They further submit that all the petitioners have suffered
sufficient incarceration as they are behind the bars for the last more than
six months.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
12. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions
imparted to him by ASI Harjoginder Singh, informs this Court that the
investigation has already been completed in the instant matter, and the
final report has been filed way back on dated 01.09.2023, and thereupon,
the charges were framed on dated 21.11.2023, and out of total 22
prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution in the final report, none
has been examined by the learned trial Court concerned so far.
ANALYSIS
13. "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception". This basic
principle of criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, way back in 1978, in its landmark judgment titled "State
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002937
CRM-M-38786-2023 &
connected petitions. -5-
of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay", 1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1)
535. This principle finds its roots in one of the most distinguished
fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Though the underlying objective behind detention of a person is to
ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any
inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be
secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.
14. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained
person. However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts
shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal
jurisprudence, which is "the presumption of innocence", besides the
gravity of offence(s) involved.
15. In "Nikesh Tarachand Shah V. Union of India", (2018) 11
SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded the following:-
"14. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 565 at 586-588, the purpose of granting
bail is set out with great felicity as follows:-
"27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which
deal with the right to ordinary bail because that right
does not furnish an exact parallel to the right to
anticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting that as
long back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court of
Calcutta in Nagendra v. King-Emperor the object of
bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the
trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution
of the question whether bail should be granted or
refused is whether it is probable that the party will
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002937
CRM-M-38786-2023 &
connected petitions. -6-
appear to take his trial and that it is indisputable that
bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. In two
other cases which,significantly, are the 'Meerut
Conspiracy cases' observations are to be found
regarding the right to bail which deserve a special
mention. In K.N. Joglekar v. Emperor [AIR 1931 All
504 : 33 Cri LJ 94] it was observed, while dealing
with Section 498 which corresponds to the present
Section 439 of the Code, that it conferred upon the
Sessions Judge or the High Court wide powers to
grant bail which were not handicapped by the
restrictions in the preceding Section 497 which
corresponds to the present Section 437. It was
observed by the court that there was no hard and fast
rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise
of the discretion conferred by Section 498 and that the
only principle which was established was that the
discretion should be exercised judiciously. In Emperor
v. Hutchinson [AIR 1931 All 356, 358 : 32 Cri LJ
1271] it was said that it was very unwise to make an
attempt to lay down any particular rules which will
bind the High Court, having regard to the fact that the
legislature itself left the discretion of the court
unfettered. According to the High Court, the variety of
cases that may arise from time to time cannot be safely
classified and it is dangerous to make an attempt to
classify the cases and to say that in particular classes
a bail may be granted but not in other classes. It was
observed that the principle to be deduced from the
various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was
that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the
exception. An accused person who enjoys freedom is
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002937
CRM-M-38786-2023 &
connected petitions. -7-
in a much better position to look after his case and to
properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As
a presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled
to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own
case. A presumably innocent person must have his
freedom to enable him to establish his innocence.
28. Coming nearer home, it was observed by Krishna
Iyer, J., in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor
[(1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 115] that: (SCC p.
242, para 1)
"... the issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public
safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist
that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a
socially sensitized judicial process. . . . After all, personal
liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering
lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure established by law.
The last four words of Article 21 are the life of that human
right."
29. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)
[(1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] it was observed by
Goswami, J., who spoke for the court, that: (SCC p. 129,
para 29)
"There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter
of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case
will govern the exercise of judicial
discretion in granting or cancelling bail."
30. In AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE (2d, Volume 8, p.
806, para 39), it is stated:
"Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion
of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large
extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular
case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002937
CRM-M-38786-2023 &
connected petitions. -8-
the
accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the
jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary
inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond
would effect that end."
It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail
or not depends for its answer upon a variety of
circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter
into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot
be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily
justifying the grant or refusal of bail."
16. Also, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has insisted upon striking a perfect balance of sanctity of an
individual's liberty as well as the interest of the society, in grant or
refusing bail. The relevant extract of the judgment (supra) is reproduced
hereinafter:-
3. The society has a vital interest in grant or
refusal of bail because every criminal offence is the
offence against the State. The order granting or
refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between the
conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual
liberty and the interest of the society. The law of bails
dovetails two conflicting interests namely, on the one
hand, the requirements of shielding the society from
the hazards of those committing crimes and
potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail
and on the other hand absolute adherence of the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
regarding presumption of innocence of an accused
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002937
CRM-M-38786-2023 &
connected petitions. -9-
until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual
liberty.
17. This Court has examined the instant petition on the
touchstone of the hereinabove extracted settled and legal principle(s) of
law and is of the considered opinion that the instant petition is amenable
for being allowed.
18. A perusal of the custody certificate reveals that the
petitioners have faced incarceration of more than 6 months, in the present
FIR. It further reveals that the petitioners are not involved in any other
criminal case.
FINAL ORDER
19. Considering the fact that the petitioners have suffered
incarceration of more than 6 months, and they are not found to be
involved in any other criminal case, and out of total 22 prosecution
witnesses, none has been examined so far, and the conclusion of trial
would take a long time, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the
concession of regular bail to the petitioners. Therefore, without
commenting upon the merits and circumstances of the present case, the
present petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released
on bail, on furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of
concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned.
20. However, it is clarified that if in future, the petitioners are
found indulging in commission of similar offences, as are involved
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002937
CRM-M-38786-2023 &
connected petitions. -10-
herein, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to make an appropriate
application seeking cancellation of regular bail, as granted by this Court.
Moreover, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on the
merits of the trial and is meant for deciding the present petition only.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the
connected cases.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
January 10, 2024 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002937
10 of 10
