Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paras Deol vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143705
CRM-M-53795-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.235 CRM-M-53795-2024(O&M)
Date of decision : 05.11.2024
Paras Deol ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. V.K. Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Thind, DAG, Punjab.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023
has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.67
dated 08.07.2024, under Sections 125, 324 & 351 of BNS, 2023 and
Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 54 & 59 of the Arms Act
added later on), registered at Police Station City Batala, District Gurdaspur.
2. The relevant part of the FIR is reproduced below:-
"Statement of Manjinder Singh son of Gurbakhash
Singh resident of Dhall Motors, Jalandhar road Batala Mobile
No.9779626255, I would like to state that I am running
Immigration Centre under the name of Global village at bus
stand Batala. Today at around 2.00 PM, I went to my house
from office and at around 4.00 PM, I received phone call from
my office that some unknown boys have made firing on the
glass gate of the office and ran way. I want to inform you that
on 01.07.2023, I received threat call from mobile
No.6232728998 which was made Ramesh Kumar son of Vijay
Kumar resident of Khanda Khola under the greed of money on
the asking of Manjit Singh @ Vicky who was employee of my
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143705
office and now he has been removed from the job of my office.
He has admitted that Ramesh Kumar has made to sit me in his
hotel first bite and given greed of money and weapon to kill me.
About 4 months ago, the firing was made on me at restaurant
Birio Master Jalandhar Byepass Batala to threat me under the
demand of extortion money. At that time, the amount of
Rs.50.00 lacs was demanded as extortion money. This firing is
made by unknown persons to threat me. Legal action be taken
against these unknown persons."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has been nominated as
an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. The
petitioner has not been named in the FIR. The petitioner has undergone an
actual custody of 03 months and 13 days and there is no other criminal case
registered against him.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the
petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has
filed custody certificate in Court and as per custody certificate, the petitioner
has undergone an actual custody of 03 months and 13 days, however, he
submits that there is no other criminal case registered against him. He on
instructions from the concerned investigating officer submits that challan has
been presented on 16.09.2024 and charges have been framed on 27.09.2024
and out of a total of 16 prosecution witnesses, 03 witnesses have been given
up and 01 witness has been examined. He however, contends that in view of
the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the
concession of regular bail.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143705
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner has undergone custody period of 03
months and 13 days. The investigation is complete and out of a total of 16
prosecution witnesses, 03 witnesses have been given up and 01 witness has
been examined till date. The petitioner has clean antecedents. It would be
unjust to keep him behind bars looking at the condition of the jails which are
not conducive for rehabilitation process and detaining the accused persons in
jails would also tantamount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India including the right to speedy trial, and is against the principle "Bail is a
rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in the judgment of Apex Court in
"Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC
22".
7. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is
not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for
some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending
trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. The Apex Court in "Abdul Rehman
Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another", 1992(2) RCR
(Criminal) 634 observed that Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21
encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial,
appeal, revision and retrial.
8. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner
shall be established during the course of the trial. Further, considering the
aspect that the trial will take a considerable time to conclude, this Court is of
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143705
the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner will not serve
any purpose.
9. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it
may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(I) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the
trial.
(II) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness(s).
(III) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(IV) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is
suspected.
(V) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail
before this Court.
11. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143705
proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which
are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
05.11.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
