Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjeet Kaur @ Neha And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034279
2024:PHHC:034279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106 CRM-M-60407-2023
Date of Decision : March 11, 2024
AMARJEET KAUR @ NEHA AND ANR -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB -RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition, the petitioners crave for
indulgence of this Court for them being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR
No.188 dated 13.09.2023, under Section 306 of the IPC, registered at P.S.
City Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural.
ALLEGATION(S) AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
2. The allegation(s) against the petitioners is that they along with
others used to harass the deceased and owing to harassment at their hands,
the deceased committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in his asking for the
hereinabove extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-
(i) Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case,
as they had never, at any point of time, abetted, induced or
instigated the deceased;
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034279
CRM-M-60407-2023 2 2024:PHHC:034279
(ii) No case under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the
petitioners, as the ingredients of abetment are completely lacking;
(iii) The allegations levelled in the FIR are totally false and the
petitioners have been made a scapegoat. In fact, the deceased
committed suicide owing to a matrimonial dispute inter se him
and the complainant;
(iv) Petitioners have undergone incarceration of approx. 6
months;
(v) Investigation stands completed, whereupon, Final Report has
also been presented on 14.09.2023;
(vi) the trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon, as charges
have not yet been framed, therefore, keeping the petitioners
behind the bars would serve no gainful purpose;
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
4. Per contra, though the learned State counsel has opposed the
grant of regular bail to the petitioners, primarily on the ground that, the
allegations levelled against the petitioners are grave in nature, however, on
instructions imparted to him by A.S.I. Gurcharan Singh, he does not dispute
the factum that the Final Report has already been presented on 14.09.2023,
and charges are yet to be framed.
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
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034279
CRM-M-60407-2023 3 2024:PHHC:034279
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 [AIR 1924 Cal 476, 479, 480 : 25 Cri LJ 732]
that 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
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034279
CRM-M-60407-2023 4 2024:PHHC:034279
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 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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034279
CRM-M-60407-2023 5 2024:PHHC:034279
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 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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034279
CRM-M-60407-2023 6 2024:PHHC:034279
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 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) since charges are yet to be framed, therefore, keeping the
petitioner behind the bars, who have already suffered incarceration of
approx. 6 months, would serve no fruitful purpose; and (ii) the petitioners
have clean past antecedents, as they are not involved in any other case.
FINAL ORDER
11. Considering the hereinabove made discussion, 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 petition is 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.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034279
CRM-M-60407-2023 7 2024:PHHC:034279
12. It is clarified that 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)
March 11, 2024 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034279
7 of 7
