Lovepreet Singh vs State Of Haryana
2024 Latest Caselaw 6419 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lovepreet Singh vs State Of Haryana on 21 March, 2024

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041825



226                                                               2024:PHHC:041825
CRM-M-13618-2024                                                               -1-
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
                                   CRM-M-13618-2024
                                   Date of decision: 21.03.2024

LOVEPREET SINGH                                               ...... PETITIONER
                                              versus

STATE OF HARYANA                                              ...... RESPONDENT

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
                 ***
Present:- Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate
          for the petitioner.

        Mr. Avinash Jain, 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.269 dated

09.07.2023, under Sections 379A/506/34 of IPC, (under Sections 379B & 120-B

IPC added and under Section 379A deleted later on) registered at Police Station-

Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER

2. The prosecution agency was set into motion, on a complaint made

by one Puran Chand, son of Sohan Lal, wherein, he alleged that he was working

as Bureau Chief, Danik Bhaskar Dabwali, and on dated 08.07.2023, when he was

going to his village, then three unidentified persons on a motorcycle came from

behind, and snatched about Rs.3,000/- from his pocket, and also thrashed him.

Subsequently, on the next day the present petitioner was arrested, and he was also

identified by the complainant during investigation, that he was one of the person,

who was involved in the snatching.

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:-

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041825

226 2024:PHHC:041825

(i) Petitioner is behind the bars since last about 08 months and 07 days;

(ii) Petitioner is not named in the FIR, whereas, there is only recovery of Rs. 700/- from him during investigation;

(iii) There is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime;

(iv) Petitioner seeks parity that other three accused who have been granted bail by this Court.

(v) The conclusion of the trial will take long time". 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 Deputy Superintendent District Prison (Sirsa), Haryana. The same is

taken on record. A perusal of the same reveals that the petitioner has

undergone incarceration of about 08 months and 07 days, as on today. A

perusal of the custody certificate further reveals that the petitioner is not

involved in any other case. Learned State counsel on instructions, imparted to

him by the official concerned, submits that the charges have been framed on

22.1.2024, and out of the total 10 prosecution witnesses, none has been

examined till date.

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 (I) 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

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041825

226 2024:PHHC:041825

accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of

an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention 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 hail 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 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

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041825

226 2024:PHHC:041825

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 lyer, J., in Gudikanı 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

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041825

226 2024:PHHC:041825

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 as 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 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 principles) 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) as per custody certificate (supra), the petitioner has suffered

incarceration of about 08 months and 7 days, as on today; (ii) no fruitful

purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars; (iii) trial is

not likely to conclude anytime soon; (iv) the other co-accused have been

granted bail by this Court vide CRM-M-56140-2023 and CRM-M-8240-2024.

FINAL ORDER

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041825

226 2024:PHHC:041825

11. Considering the hereinabove made discussion, this Court deems it

fit and 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.

12. However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect

on the merits of the trial, and is only meant for deciding the present petition.

13. All pending application(s) stand disposed of accordingly.

                                                     ( KULDEEP TIWARI)
                                                          JUDGE
21.03.2024
Anu
             Whether speaking/reasoned               Yes/No
             Whether Reportable :                    Yes/No




                                    6 of 6