Punjab-Haryana High Court
Govind Rai @ Gopi vs State Of Punjab on 13 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066233
CRM-M-13524-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
110 CRM-M-13524-2024
Date of Decision : May 13, 2024
GOVIND RAI @ GOPI -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB -RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Angad Parmar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate
for the complainant.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner craves for indulgence
of this Court for him being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.151 dated
18.07.2023, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 326, 307, 379-B, 427 of the IPC,
and, Section 27 of the Arms Act (Sections 450, 336, 201 of the IPC, and, Sec-
tion 25 of the Arms Act added subsequently), registered at P.S. Navi Baradari,
District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
2. The present FIR derives its genesis from the statement of one
Sharandeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant'). Succinctly
stated, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are that, he along with his
co-accused inflicted injuries to the complainant and his parents and also com-
mitted snatching. The relevant extract of the complainant's statement, as nar-
rated in paragraph No.2 of the order dated 13.02.2024, wherethrough peti-
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066233
tioner's second bail application has been dismissed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge concerned, is reproduced hereinafter:-
"...present case was registered on the statement of Sharandeep Singh
with the allegations that he was Cable Network Operator. On
17.07.2023 at about 11:30 pm, when he was standing outside his
house, one white Swift Car came there and two young boys namely
Rahul and Gopi (applicant/accused) alighted from the same. Another
e-rickshaw also came there and Rohan alias Kanna and one driver
alighted from same. All these four persons Rahul, Gopi (accused/appli-
cant) and Rohan and another unknown boy attacked him. Rohan, Gopi
and Rahul were stating that they had demanded money from him, but
he had not given the same. Rohan was armed with sharp edged object
and he gave blow with the same on the back of his head. Gopi (ac-
cused/applicant) gave another sharp edged weapon blow on his head.
Rahul scuffled with him. Blood was oozing out of head. Thereupon the
other unknown person raised lalkara that he be taught a lesson for not
giving money to them. He raised hue and cry and ran towards his
house. Thereupon, Gopi, Rohan and Rahul chased him. On hearing
raula, his father Daljit Singh and mother Sukhwinder Kaur came out of
the house to save him, but said assailants used derogatory language
against them and gave injuries on their head. He was having 32 bore
licensed revolver, which he had kept in his house. In order to save him-
self and to save life of his parents, he took out said gun from his house
and fired shots in air. Thereupon said assailants snatched his revolver
and also fired towards him with an intention to kill him, but he along-
with his parents went inside his house to save themselves. When the as-
sailants were giving injuries to his parents, they snatched gold chain
from the neck of his mother and Gopi and Rahul also snatched away
Rs.70,000/- which were lying in the bed. Entire occurrence was
recorded in CCTV Cameras installed on the gate of his house and in
the street..."
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the here-
inabove extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066233
(i) Although the present FIR embodies specific allegations against
the petitioner that he caused injury(ies) to the complainant, which
was declared "dangerous to life", however, the veracity of such al-
legations is yet to be ascertained and established;
(ii) Although the petitioner is stated to be involved in a couple of
other cases also, however, in majority of those cases, he has earned
acquittal;
(iii) Petitioner has undergone incarceration of approx. 10 months;
(iv) Investigation stands completed, whereupon, Final Report was
presented on 13.10.2023 and charges were framed on 02.02.2024;
(v) the trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon, as out of total 29
prosecution witnesses, none has yet been examined, therefore, keep-
ing the petitioner behinds the bars, without him being proved guilty,
would serve no gainful purpose;
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL, AND,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT
4. Per contra, the learned State counsel, who is assisted by the
learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the grant of bail
to the petitioner, on the ground that, the petitioner has not only caused injuries
to the complainant, but he intruded into the complainant's house and caused
injuries to his parents also. Moreover, apart from inflicting injuries, the peti-
tioner, who is in fact running a racket of extortion, has committed snatching
also in the complainant's house.
5. The learned State counsel has also placed on record the custody
certificate of the petitioner, as issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ka-
purthala. Moreover, on instructions imparted to him by A.S.I. Balwinder
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066233
Singh, he has verified that none out of the total 29 prosecution witnesses has
yet been examined.
ANALYSIS
6. Before embarking upon the process of evaluating the argu-
ments addressed by the learned counsels for the parties and penning down
any opinion upon the instant petition, it is deemed imperative to capture an
overview of some significant legal propositions.
7. "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 en-
shrined 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.
8. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained per-
son. However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall
also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurispru-
dence, which is "the presumption of innocence", besides the gravity of of-
fence(s) involved.
9. In "Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab", (1980) 2 SCC
565 at 586-588, the purpose of granting bail is set out by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court 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
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066233
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 Cal-
cutta in Nagendra v. King Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 (479,
480) that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the ac-
cused 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 de-
serve a special mention. In K.N. Joglekar v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Al-
lahabad 504 (SB) 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 pre-
ceding 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 con-
ferred by Section 498 and that the only principle which was estab-
lished was that the discretion should be exercised judiciously. In
Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 at p. 358 it
was said that it was very unwise to make an attempt to lay down any
particular rules which bind the High Court, having regard to the
fact that the legislature itself left the discretion of the Court unfet-
tered. According to the High Court, the variety of cases that may
arise from time to time cannot be safely classified and it is danger-
ous to make an attempt to classify the cases and to say that in partic-
ular 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 de-
fend 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.
XX XX XX
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066233
29. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 it
was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for the Court, that "there
cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The
facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of ju-
dicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail".
30. In American Jurisprudence (2d, Vol. 8, page 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 cumula-
tive effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one sin-
gle circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as
necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail."
10. Also, in "Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others Versus Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh", 1978 AIR (Supreme Court)
429, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, speaking through Krishna Iyer, J., has
enunciated the principles of bail thus :
"9. Thus the legal principle and practice validate the court consid-
ering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for
the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not
only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the an-
tecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a
bad record-particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to
commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habitual, it is
part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has en-
abled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on
the member of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence
about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise
in irrelevance.
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066233
10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of
liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law
authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to he goals of
community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed,
the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the con-
stitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates
intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom by re-
fusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests
of justice - to the individual involved and society affected.
11. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the test the rea-
sonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the bail
applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better
chance to prepare of present his case than one remanded in custody.
And if public justice is to be promoted. mechanical detention should
be demoted. In the United States, which has a constitutional per-
spective close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community
roots' of the applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's
Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The
considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger
of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible con-
sideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on
the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and ex-
pensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail un-
reasonable and a policy favouring release justly sensible.
12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of
liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along
an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole
scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive
harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the
man, even through community service, meditative drill, study classes
or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public
peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or com-
mitting offences while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise',
should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confi-
dence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be
hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the
holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judi-
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066233
cial discretion correlated to the values of our Constitution.
13. Viewed from this perspective, we gain a better insight into the
rules of the game. When a person, charged with a grave offence, has
been acquitted at a stage, has the intermediate acquittal pertinence
to a bail plea when the appeal before this Court pends? Yes, it has.
The panic which might prompt the accused to jump the gauntlet of
justice is less, having enjoyed the confidence of the court's verdit
once. Concurrent holdings of guilt have the opposite effect. Again,
the ground for denial of provisional release becomes weaker when
the fact stares us in the face that a fair finding if that be so - of
innocence has been recorded by one court. It may not be conclusive,
for the judgment of acquittal may be ex facie wrong, the likelihood
of desperate reprisal, if enlarged, may be a deterrent and his own
safety may be more in prison than in the vengeful village where
feuds have provoked the violent offence. It depends. Antecedents of
the man and socio-geographical circumstances have a bearing only
from this angle. Police exaggerations of prospective misconduct of
the accused, if enlarged, must be soberly sized up lest danger of
excesses and injustice creep subtly into the discretionary curial
technique. Bad record and policy prediction of criminal prospects to
invalidate the bail plea are admissible in principle but shall not
stampede the court into a complacent refusal."
11. Be that as it may, considering the hereinabove made
submissions, especially the fact that: (i) as per custody certificate, the
petitioner has suffered incarceration of approx. 10 months; (ii) trial is at its
initial stage and is not likely to conclude anytime soon, as out of total 29
prosecution witnesses, none has yet been examined, therefore, subjecting
the petitioner to prolonged incarceration would serve no fruitful purpose;
(iii) the victim(s)/injured has reportedly recovered from injuries and has not
suffered any permanent disability; 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
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066233
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 case and is meant for deciding the present petition only.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
May 13, 2024 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
