Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Alias Gullu vs State Of Haryana on 19 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039199
2024:PHHC:039199
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106 CRM-M-59068-2023
Date of Decision : March 19, 2024
RAVINDER ALIAS GULLU -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA -RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Rao Ajender Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhupender Singh, D.A.G., 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.40 dated 04.02.2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 of the
IPC (Section 302 of the IPC added subsequently), registered at P.S.
Narwana City, District Jind.
ALLEGATION(S) AGAINST THE PETITIONER
2. Succinctly stated, the allegation(s) against the petitioner is that
he along with his co-accused intruded into the house of the complainant and
caused injuries to her and her family members. In this assault, one Misro
Devi, who was grandmother-in-law of the complainant, lost her life.
3. For ready reference, the relevant extract of complainant's
statement, which led to registration of the present FIR, and, which is
narrated in the order dated 11.10.2023, whereby, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Jind, has declined to grant bail to the petitioner, is extracted
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039199
CRM-M-59068-2023 2 2024:PHHC:039199
hereinafter:-
"... On 03.02.2023 at about 10-30 p.m. she alongwith her husband
Raju, brother-in-law Somu and grand-mother-in-law Misro were
present at their house. She told her husband Raju to bring diaper for
her child. On this her husband stepped out from the house to bring
the diaper and went to the street where one Ajay son of Manu was
already present in the street, who started abusing her husband in
high volume. After hearing the voice she came out of the house and
she saw that her husband was asked Ajay not to abuse. Thereafter,
Ajay slapped her husband then her husband returned to the house.
In the meantime, Ajay bring a sword from his house alongwith his
family member, associates and relatives namely Suraj son of Ram
Sarup, who was having a gandasi in his hand, Sethi son of Oma who
was having a danda in his hand, Sonu son of Mamu who was having
a hockey, Bittu son of Abu, Gullu son of Balwan, Baba son of Ram
Kumar, Gaurav son of Rajesh, Bimla wife of Ram Sarup forcibly
entered in their house. They were sitting in a room in their house
and all attacked them. Ajay gave blow with reverse side of sword.
Suraj also gave blow with reverse side of gandasi to her grand-
mother-in-law. Thereafter, Sethi, Sonu, Bittu attacked on her
husband, her grand-mother-in-law and brother-in-law Somu with
dandas which were took in their hands and Baba, Gaurav and Bimla
gave slap and fist blows to her, her husband, her grand-mother-in-
law and brother-in-law Somu. Thereafter, they raised alarm then all
the persons on seeing the persons of their locality, ran away from
the spot with their weapons. While running Bimla threatened they
have been saved and again met then they would be killed and they
would not allow them to reside in this locality. She saved her child
with difficulties. Locality persons called ambulance and thereafter
she shifted her husband, grand mother-in-law and brother-in-law to
Civil Hospital for treatment. Due to serious condition of her grand
mother-in-law, doctors referred her MAMC, Agroha where she is
under treatment. After the Panchayat, the family members of
complaint took her with them..."
4. The record, as available before this Court, makes revelations
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039199
CRM-M-59068-2023 3 2024:PHHC:039199
that initially a case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452,
506 of the IPC. However, upon demise of injured Misro Devi, offence under
Section 302 of the IPC was incorporated in the present FIR.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his asking
for the hereinabove extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-
(i) Though name of the petitioner surfaces in the FIR, however,
no specific role or injury has been assigned to him therein;
(ii) The sole allegation against the petitioner is that he along
with his co-accused intruded into the house of the complainant.
Moreover, no motive whatsoever has been assigned to the
petitioner;
(iii) Though the petitioner is alleged to have suffered a
disclosure qua him along with his co-accused giving slaps and
fist blows to family members of the complainant, including
deceased Misro Devi, however, the said disclosure statement is
inadmissible, inasmuch as, it was recorded during police
custody;
(iv) Nonetheless, even if the allegations are taken to be a gospel
truth, yet no offence under Section 302 of the IPC is made out,
and, offence only under Section 304 of the IPC can be attracted
at the most, inasmuch as, the demise of injured Misro Devi had
occurred after 3 days of the alleged occurrence;
(v) Out of total 9 accused, 6 accused, including the one(s) who
inflicted injuries to deceased Misro Devi, are facing trial,
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039199
CRM-M-59068-2023 4 2024:PHHC:039199
whereas, 3 accused are absconding;
(vi) The petitioner has clean antecedents, as he is not involved
in any other criminal proceedings;
(vii) The petitioner was arrested on 14.02.2023, whereupon, he
was put behind bars and as on today, he has undergone
incarceration of approx. 1 year and 1 month;
(viii) the trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon, as despite
charges becoming framed on 12.07.2023, only two prosecution
witnesses, out of total 19 witnesses, have been examined so far,
therefore, keeping the petitioner behind the bars would serve no
gainful purpose;
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
6. Since the petitioner has been facing trial for commission of
offence under Section 302 of the IPC, this Court had directed the learned
State counsel to file a status report, which has been filed on affidavit of
Amit Bhatia, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narwana, District Jind. The
status report is taken on record.
7. The learned State counsel though has vehemently opposed the
grant of the asked for relief (supra), however, he does not dispute the factum
qua period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner. Moreover, on
instructions imparted to him by the official concerned, he has further
verified that out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, only 2 witnesses have
been examined so far.
ANALYSIS
8. "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception". This basic
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039199
CRM-M-59068-2023 5 2024:PHHC:039199
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.
9. 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.
10. 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
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039199
CRM-M-59068-2023 6 2024:PHHC:039199
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 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
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039199
CRM-M-59068-2023 7 2024:PHHC:039199
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
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039199
CRM-M-59068-2023 8 2024:PHHC:039199
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."
11. 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.
12. Be that as it may, 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.
13. The reason for forming the above inference emanates from the
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039199
CRM-M-59068-2023 9 2024:PHHC:039199
factum that:- (i) neither any specific role, nor any injury, nor any motive for
murder of deceased Misro Devi, except the petitioner being alleged to be
present at the spot, has been attributed in the present FIR; (ii) probative
value of the material available on record is yet to be established during the
course of trial; (iii) petitioner has undisputedly suffered incarceration of
approx. 1 year and 1 month and he has clean past antecedents, inasmuch as,
he is not involved in any other criminal case; (iv) trial is not likely to
conclude anytime soon, as 17 prosecution witnesses, out of total 19
witnesses, are yet to be examined.
FINAL ORDER
14. Considering the hereinabove made discussion, 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
satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty
Magistrate.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
March 19, 2024 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
