Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yashbir @ Ashu vs State Of Haryana on 10 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002459
CRM-M-51561-2023 -1-
2024:PHHC:002459
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
213 CRM-M-51561-2023
Date of Decision : January 10, 2024
YASHBIR ALIAS ASHU .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Ms. Neenu Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhupender Singh, DAG, Haryana.
KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral)
1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner craves for
indulgence of this Court for his being enlarged on regular bail, in case
FIR No. 197 dated 02.05.2022, under Section 379-B and 34 of the IPC
(Sections 392, 397, 411 and 120-B IPC added later on and Section 34
IPC deleted), registered at Police Station Sadar, District Sonipat.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
2. Instant FIR has been registered on a statement made by the
complainant Naveen on 02.05.2022. The gist of the allegations as
recorded by the learned trial Court concerned while declining the bail to
the petitioner reads as under:-
"3. Facts in brief are that on 02.05.2022 a telephonic
information was received regarding snatching of cash. Upon it, ASI
Ramesh along with other police officials went to the spot where
complainant Naveen met them and moved a written complaint. In the
complaint, complainant stated that he works as Junior Executive in
Brinks India Private Limited and his duty is to collect the cash from
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002459
private firms and deposit the same in the banks. Today, he along with
his colleague Sashi Kumar was going on Motor Cycle No.HR10AM
5053 Make Delux, colour black. They collected the cash from Burger
King, Haldiram, Macdy, Biji Bij, Indus Bank, Dominoz and delivery
courier company total Rs.19,62,039/-. He was riding the Motor-Cycle
whereas Sashi Kumar was pillion rider. From Kabirpur to ITI Chowk in
front of Balaji Confectionery shop a person was crossing the road and
came in front of his Bike. Due to that reason, when he halted his Bike to
save him, suddenly a boy took out the keys of his Bike. The other boy
with stick assaulted them. Further stated that to save himself, he entered
in the office of Delivery Courier and thereas 3rd boy snatched cash from
the pillion rider Sashi and went away from that place on the Bike which
was parked at a slight distance. Due to some distance, he could not note
down the number of the Motor-Cycle. He passed on information with
the help of employee of Delivery Courier Office whereupon police
reached there. A request was made to recover their cash. Upon it, above
referred FIR was registered. Accused were arrested 06.05.2022. four
days police remand of accused Harsh alias Hunny, Parshant and Sehdev
was obtained. Accused Harsh alias Hunny, Parshand and Sehdev were
also arrested in this case. Accused Shivam told the police that he has
been paid Rs.75,000/- by Harsh alias Sunny out of the snatched cash for
purchase of mobile Apple value Rs.69,990/-. Accordingly, he got
recovered the Mobile and Rs.5,100/- cash. Offence under Section 411
IPC was added."
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-
accused Harsh who, in fact had snatched the money, from the petitioner
and other person has been granted the releif of regular bail by this Court.
She further submits that the case of the petitioner is on better
footing as the only role assigned to the petitioner is that he has in fact
abetted the present offence by informing the whereabouts of the
complainant to the main accused.
She further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars
since 08.05.2022 and most of the material witnesses as examined by the
prosecution have turned hostile.
She further submits that out of total 52 prosecution
witnesses, 42 have already been examined, and yet 10 more witnesses are
required to be examined by the prosecution, and conclusion of the trial
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002459
would take a long time.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
4. Per contra, the learned State counsel strenuously opposes the
grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
ANALYSIS
5. "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
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.
6. 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.
7. 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:-
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002459
"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
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
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002459
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
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)
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002459
"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
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."
8. 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
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002459
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
until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual
liberty.
9. 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.
FINAL ORDER
10. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for
petitioner, that the co-accused who in fact had snatched the money has
been granted bail vide order dated 11.12.2023, by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in CRM-M-21407-2023, and further considering that the
petitioner is behind the bars since 08.05.02022, and he is not involved in
any other case, and the conclusion of trial would take long time, this
Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the
petitioner, during the pendency of trial. Therefore, without commenting
upon the merits and circumstances of the present case, the present
petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002459
furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned
Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
11. However, it is clarified that if in future, the petitioner is
found indulging in commission of similar offences, as are involved
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.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
January 10, 2024 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002459
8 of 8
