Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Alias Ajju vs State Of Haryana on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037277
CRM-M-12214-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:037277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
215 CRM-M-12214-2024
Date of Decision : March 14, 2023
AJAY ALIAS AJJU .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the petitioner
Mr.Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.
KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral).
1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
the petitioner pray for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.511, dated
11.12.2023, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 307 and 506 of the IPC and
under Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Chandhut,
District Palwal.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
2. One Rajesh Kumar son of Krishan Lal got recorded his
statement which led to the registration of instant FIR, wherein, he alleged
that on dated 10.12.2023, at 9:00 p.m. he received a call from his nephew
namely Deepak, wherein he stated to the complainant that Ajju (present
petitioner), Deepak, Bobby, Shekhar, Jassu and Ravi (cousin of Ajju),
Kuldeep, Sandeep, and 15-20 other persons, have surrounded him at
Chandhat Chowk, and they were given beatings to him. Whereupon, he
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037277
alongwith his cousin Dheeraj, reached at the spot, and found that Deepak
was being assaulted by the accused persons, and both of them with folded
hands tried to rescue Deepak, but all the accused were under the
influence of alcohol, and upon this, present petitioner and Deepak son of
Kalyan, started firing gunshots on the complainant and Preetam, due to
which both of them received pallet injury on their head. The other co-
accused also caused injuries to the injured, with their respective weapons.
When the police party reached at the spot, all accused persons ran away
from the spot, and the complainant party was taken to the hospital for
their treatment.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that infact there is
huge difference between the ocular testimony, and the medical record. As
per the MLR, no pallet injury was suffered by Deepak or Preetam. For
this, he draws attention of this Court to the MLR, as attached with the
present case. He further submits that the recovery of illegal weapon was
effected from him, but the MLR clearly defies the ocular version of the
complainant, that such weapon was never used.
4. He further submits that though there is one more criminal
case is pending against the petitioner, but in one case he has already been
acquitted of the charges framed, as against him, and in another case he is
already on bail.
5. He also submits that the co-accused Deepak, who is on
similar footing, has already been extended the benefit of regular bail by
the learned trial Court concerned itself.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037277
6. He also submit that the petitioner has already suffered
incarceration of more than 2 months, and the conclusion of trial will take
long time.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
7. Per contra, the learned State counsel vociferously opposed
the asked for relief on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual
offender, and in future as well there are chances that he will indulge in
such kind of offence, if released on regular bail. He further raises
apprehension that the petitioner may influence the prosecution witnesses.
8. He has placed on record a custody certificate qua the
petitioner, which makes revelation that the petitioner has suffered
incarceration of 2 months and 16 days, as on today.
9. He further submits that the final report has been filed on
dated 21.02.2024, in which the prosecution has cited total 19 witnesses,
and the charges are yet to be framed.
ANALYSIS
10. "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
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037277
secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.
11. 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.
12. 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
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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037277
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 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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037277
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."
13. 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
until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual
liberty.
14. 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
15. Be that as it may be, considering the fact that the co-accused
who is on similar footing has already been extended the benefit of regular
bail, and the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 2 months 16 days, as
on today, and trial will take some time to conclude, coupled with the fact
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037277
that he has earned acquittal in one criminal case, whereas, in another he is
already on bail, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to grant the
concession of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of the
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 furnishing of the bail bonds and surety
bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial
Court/Duty Magistrate.
16. However, it is clarified that if in future, the petitioner is
found indulging in commission of similar offences, as is involved herein,
and further if he tries to influence the prosecution witnesses in any
manner, 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)
March 14, 2024 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037277
7 of 7
