Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh Alias Boban vs State Of Punjab on 8 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880
CRM-M-54689-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
214 CRM-M-54689-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 08.11.2024
AMANDEEP SINGH ALIAS BOBAN
...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Malkiat Singh, DAG Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS,
2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Case FIR No. 69
Dated 02.03.2023 registered under Sections 302, 364, 201, 406, 420,
120-B IPC at Police Station City Kharar District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the
version in the FIR reads as under :-
'Statement of Gagan Kumar Son of Paramjit Singh Resident of
House No.-2213/55 C New Vijay Nagar Street No-3 Tajpur Road,
Ludhiana, District Ludhiana aged about 26 years, stated that I am a
resident of the aforesaid address and working in a private job at
Ludhiana. My brother-in-law Rajinder Singh son of Hardev Singh
Village Post Office Mahauli Khurd Police Station Sandour District
Malerkotla (aged about 33-34 years) who used to work for car sales
and exchange at Kharar who lived on rent at Sri Krishna Dairy
Sante Majra Colony Kharar near Swaraj Nagar that on dated 18-2-
2023 my brother-in-law came back from Gurgaon Haryana. With
whom I spoke on the phone, who told me that I will come to
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880
Ludhiana on Monday.
After that, from Sunday, my brother-in-law Rajinder Singh was
nowhere to be found. whose mobile phone was also switched off. We
kept looking for him on our own and on 23-2-2023 1 also gave a
missing report at the police station City Kharar. Then I came to
know that my brother-in-law Rajinder Singh's bank account in
HDFC, SBI has withdrawn about 2.5 lakh rupees from various
places through ATM. That's why I applied at SBI Bank Branch
Sandaur District Malerkotla for his account number-
50100397745235. The statement was also obtained. From which it
was found that on dated 24-2-2023, 5 thousand rupees of my
brother-in-law Rajinder Singh through UPI PHONE NO - 77480-
96921 has been transferred to the as last transaction from the
account number-4694248162090. Then we checked on our own and
found that it is in the name of Prabh alias Prabhjot Singh in
account number- 4694248162090 from mobile number-77430-
96921. Then alongwith Sukhveer Singh on your asking came to the
police station Mor Kharar, then you showed me the notice of
discovery of the dead body of an unknown person by police station
Bassi Pathana and on seeing that notice of the dead body came to
know that this picture belongs to my brother-in- law Rajinder Singh.
Before this my brother-in-law Rajinder Singh through his
acquaintance Hira Singh alias Deep son of Bhupinder Singh
resident of Street No-2 Guru Nanak Colony near Udham Singh
Chak Village Sangaria District Hanumangarh Rajasthan and other
acquaintances Amandeep Singh alias Boban Son of Balwant Singh
resident of villageHamirgarh Dhapai District Mansa, Prabhjot
Singh alias Anshu son of Nirlep Singh resident of House no.-142
Mander Nagar Kharar District Mohali and Manjot Singh son of
Sardul Singh resident of village. Morjand Sikhan District
Hanumangarh Rajasthan was traveling in vehicle HR 26 AB 7878
mark Skoda. who lived together as they were mutual friends and
Heera Singh alias Deep uses my brother-in-law Rajinder Singh's
Alto car color white as a taxi. Hira Singh aka Deep had caused an
accident due to which the car broke down and huge damage was
done. The cost of which was 40 thousand rupees was paid by Hira
Singh alias Deep. Therafter Hira Singh alias Deep used to demand
that 40 thousand rupees from my brother-in-law. Thereafter Hira
Singh alias Deep cleverly transferred 40 thousand rupees from my
brother-in-law Rajinder Singh's account to his account through the
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880
net. Because of which my brother-in-law Rajinder Singh had dispute
with Hira Singh alias Deep and Hira Singh is having grudge
against my brother-in-law. Now I was fully convinced that my
brother-in- law Rajinder Singh was abducted and murdered by Hira
Singh alias Deep, Amandeep Singh, Prabhjot Singh and Manjot
Singh and his body was mutilated. Appropriate legal action should
be taken against them. The written statement is correct after
hearing and reading it. Sd/-Gagan Kumar Attested/-Sukhveer Singh,
Attested/ Harjinder Singh SI/SHO Station House Officer, Police
Station City Kharar, Dated 23-2-2023.'
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and as per the
allegations, the petitioner along with other co-accused has kidnapped
and murdered brother-in-law of the complainant due to some money
dispute. He submits that the charges have already been framed against
the present petitioner and other co-accused on 04.01.2024 and the
complainant namely Gagan Kumar has been examined by the
prosecution and has turned hostile qua the present petitioner, therefore,
there is strong probability of his earning acquittal. He has further
argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean and no fruitful
purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars as
conclusion of trial would take long time as out of total 37 Prosecution
Witnesses, only 2 PWs have been examined so far.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on
advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has
filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the
Investigating Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating
that the petitioner is involved in serious allegations but is not in a
position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner. He informs the Court that in the present FIR challan stands
presented on 30.05.2023 and charges stands framed on 04.01.2024.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be
culled out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient
incarceration of 1 year, 7 months and 25 days, challan stands
presented on 30.05.2023 and charges stands framed on 04.01.2024,
antecedents of the petitioner are clean, meaning thereby he is not a
habitual offender added with the fact that complainant has turned
hostile, hence there is every probability of earning acquittal, and as per
the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be
considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt and
out of 37 prosecution witnesses, only 2 PWs have been examined so
far which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial
is likely to take considerable time, therefore, detaining the petitioner
behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex
Court rendered in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and
another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held
that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in
prison or in correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said
judgment is reproduced as under:-
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880
"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been
placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but
that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important
facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the
general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a
correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is
an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles
appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and
more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods.
This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to
our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely
the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the
exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large
number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High
Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to
introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right
thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best
opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an
accused person during investigations, a strong case should be
made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a
charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain
whether the accused was participating in the investigations to
the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not
absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating
officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880
officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of
being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to
consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the
judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or
has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such
offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the
deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely
important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by
incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section
436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted
by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a
suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial
custody. There are several reasons for this including
maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor
that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the
Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in
prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this
Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4)
RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.)
408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been
elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered
in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE
609 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision,
reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way
back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that
bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also
made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356
wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal
is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880
the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a
century old, going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail
should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is
entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and
though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised
judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also,
conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be
incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail
illusory."
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of
the fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the
accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in "Hussainara Khatoon
and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC
98. Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction
period of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view
the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable
apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat
to the complainant.
5. Decision:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing
bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate, concerned.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145880
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
08.11.2024
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
