Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh Alias Mola vs State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005709
2024:PHHC:005709
CRM-M-1186-2024(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221 CRM-M-1186-2024(O&M)
Date of Decision : January 16, 2024
JOGINDER SINGH ALIAS MOLA
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab.
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.216 dated 17.10.2023, under Section 379-B(2) IPC, registered at
P.S. Chheharta, District Amritsar.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
2. The instant FIR was registered on a statement made by one
Inderjeet Kaur (complainant) wife of Narinderpal Singh, wherein, she has
stated that on 17.10.2022 when she was returning from her work, one
person, who was riding motor cycle make bullet, wearing pant shirt and a
black cloth was tied on his head, came at a very high speed and snatched
her brown purse, which is alleged to have containing mobile phone mark
Apple of black colour and cash of ₹5,800/-.
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005709
2024:PHHC:005709
CRM-M-1186-2024(O&M) -2-
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the
hereinabove extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-
(i) In the present case, the main accused Gurjinder
Singh was arrested and in his disclosure statement, the
present petitioner was arraigned as an accused and
was arrested on 6.11.2023;
(ii) There is no allegation in the FIR that the
petitioner has been involved in snatching of the purse
of the victim concerned;
(iii) Infact there is a recovery of mobile phone and at
the best, the petitioner can be accused of offence under
Section 411 IPC.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
4. Per contra, the learned State counsel, who is in receipt of
advance notice, has placed on record the custody certificate of the
petitioner, as issued by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Amritsar. The
same is taken on record, which reveals that he has suffered incarceration
for about two months and seven days as on today, and he is not involved
in any other similar matter. Learned State counsel, on instructions
imparted to him by the official concerned, further submits that the final
report has been submitted before the learned Ilaqa Magistrate concerned
on 6.1.2024 and a total of 12 witnesses have been cited in the final report.
ANALYSIS
5. "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception". This basic
principle of criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon'ble
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005709
2024:PHHC:005709
CRM-M-1186-2024(O&M) -3-
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:-
"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
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005709
2024:PHHC:005709
CRM-M-1186-2024(O&M) -4-
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
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
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005709
2024:PHHC:005709
CRM-M-1186-2024(O&M) -5-
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)
"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
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005709
2024:PHHC:005709
CRM-M-1186-2024(O&M) -6-
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
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
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005709
2024:PHHC:005709
CRM-M-1186-2024(O&M) -7-
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 legal principle(s) of law
and is of the considered opinion that the instant petition is amenable for
being allowed.
10. The reason for forming the above inference emanates from
the factum that:- (i) the name of the present petitioner has been
nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused,
namely, Gurjinder Singh; (ii) there is no allegation in the FIR that the
present petitioner has been involved in snatching of the alleged purse of
the victim concerned; (iii) the present petitioner is stated to be involved
in one more case under the POCSO Act, however, he is on pre-arrest bail
in that case, and the factum regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail gets
substantiated from the order dated 5.4.2022, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court, Amritsar, which is taken on
record.
FINAL ORDER
11. Considering the allegations against the petitioner and the
incarceration suffered by the present petitioner, this Court deems it
appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
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 furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005709
2024:PHHC:005709
CRM-M-1186-2024(O&M) -8-
satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty
Magistrate.
12. 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 16, 2024 JUDGE
ajay-1
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005709
8 of 8
