Punjab-Haryana High Court
Virender Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042111
2024:PHHC:042111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
114 (I) CRM-M-5305-2024
Date of Decision : March 22, 2024
VIRENDER SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB -RESPONDENT
(II) CRM-M-48310-2023 (O&M)
SANDEEP SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB -RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Shivam Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-5305-2024).
Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-48310-2023).
Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. The amenability of both these petitions, for being decided
through a common verdict, emanates from them being arising out of the
same FIR, besides emanates from common relief(s) being craved to be
reaped therein.
2. Through the instant petitions, the petitioners crave for
indulgence of this Court for them being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR
No.06 dated 17.02.2023, under Sections 302, 379 and 34 of the IPC, 1860,
and, Sections 4(1) and 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
Development) Act, 1957, registered at P.S. Handesra, District S.A.S. Nagar.
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042111
CRM-M-5305-2024 and connected cases 2 2024:PHHC:042111
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
3. The genesis of the present FIR is embodied in the statement
made by one Bhupinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, on the allegations
that, illegal mining was being done in his village. The relevant extract of
his statement, which constituted the bedrock for registration of the present
FIR, and, which is narrated in order dated 05.01.2024, whereby, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned has declined to grant bail to
the petitioner (in CRM-M-5305-2024), is extracted hereinafter:-
"5. The brief facts of the case are that Bhupinder Singh son of
Gurcharan Singh resident of Village Badana made statement that
on 16.02.2023 at about 10:30/11:00 PM, illegal mining was being
done in their village. On hearing noise of tractors his father
Gurcharan Singh and Mohinder Singh went to the spot. They
stopped one tractor and the driver told that Harvinder Singh @
Gaggu is doing the mining in the Shamlat land. His father asked
to call Harvinder Singh and Village Panchayat. The driver
however, called 5-7 more boys at the spot who pleaded for
allowing them to go and they will call Harvinder Singh at the
spot. In the meantime, 4 more boys including Jaswinder Singh son
of Chajju Singh came there. Jaswinder Singh son of Chajju Singh
was owner of tractor and Jaswinder Singh son of Bir Singh
started the tractor of Jaswinder son of Chajju Singh and stated
that he should get off the way or he will run over. Then he run
over Gurcharan Singh with the tractor and they ran away from
the spot. Complainant along with Gurpreet Singh took his father
to hospital but his father died on the way. Accordingly, FIR was
registered.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE
PETITIONERS
4. The prime argument of the learned counsels appearing for the
petitioners, is rested upon, the present FIR being totally silent about the role
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042111
CRM-M-5305-2024 and connected cases 3 2024:PHHC:042111
of the present petitioners. How the petitioners came to be implicated in the
present FIR, was that, the complainant made an application dated
06.03.2023, to the Inspector General concerned, thereby, alleging the
petitioners to be present at the place of occurrence. However, during the
course of investigation, supplementary challans qua the petitioner (in CRM-
M-5305-2024) and petitioner (in CRM-M-48310-2023) were filed
respectively on 07.11.2023 and 21.08.2023, wherein, the sole allegation(s)
levelled against the petitioners, is that of conducting illegal mining, and, no
allegation(s) attracting the provisions of Section 302/34 have been levelled
therein against them.
5. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have further
submitted that since the petitioner (in CRM-M-5305-2024) and petitioner
(in CRM-M-48310-2023), who have clean past antecedents, have been
behind the bars respectively since 07.09.2023 and 12.07.2023, and, since
there is no likelihood of the trial concluding anytime soon, as charges are
yet to be framed, therefore, the petitioners deserve the concession of bail.
6. Lastly, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have
submitted that since petitioners' co-accused, namely, Harwinder Singh @
Guggu and Husanpreet Singh, have already been granted the relief of
regular bail by this Court, the petitioners also deserve being treated at par,
through enlarging them also on regular bail.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
7. Per contra, the learned State counsel, though has opposed the
grant of regular bail to the petitioners, however, he does not contest the fact
that the only role assigned to the petitioners, is that of indulging in illegal
mining. He has also filed custody certificates of the petitioners, which are
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042111
CRM-M-5305-2024 and connected cases 4 2024:PHHC:042111
taken on record.
8. Moreover, on instructions imparted to him by H.C. Bhupinder
Singh, he verifies that charges are yet to be framed.
ANALYSIS
9. "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 secured otherwise,
then detention is not compulsory.
10. 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.
11. 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
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042111
CRM-M-5305-2024 and connected cases 5 2024:PHHC:042111
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 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
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042111
CRM-M-5305-2024 and connected cases 6 2024:PHHC:042111
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 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
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042111
CRM-M-5305-2024 and connected cases 7 2024:PHHC:042111
or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail."
12. 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.
13. 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 petitions are amenable for
being allowed.
14. The reason for forming the above inference emanates from
the factum that:- (i) the sole allegation assigned to the petitioner is that of
committing illegal mining; (ii) petitioners' co-accused have already been
granted the relief of regular bail by this Court; (iii) petitioner (in CRM-M-
5305-2024) and petitioner (in CRM-M-48310-2023) have suffered
incarceration respectively of approx. 06½ months and 08½ months, and,
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042111
CRM-M-5305-2024 and connected cases 8 2024:PHHC:042111
they have clean past antecedents; (iv) there is no likelihood of the trial
concluding anytime soon, inasmuch as, charges are yet to be framed,
therefore, keeping the petitioners behind bars would serve no gainful
purpose.
FINAL ORDER
15. 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.
16. 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 22, 2024 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
