Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yadwinder Singh @ Luddan vs State Of Punjab on 8 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836
CRM-M-54501-2024 -1-
206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54501-2024
DECIDED ON: 08.11.2024
YADWINDER SINGH @ LUDDAN
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Malkiat Singh, DAG Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been
invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 121, dated
08.08.2023, under Sections 307, 379-B(2), 411, 473 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of
Arms Act, registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural.
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
"Statement of Rahul Rathore son of Satpal Rathore son of Kabrika
Singh resident of Back side of Rythem Place, Mandi Mullanpur PS
Dakha, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, aged about 23 years, Mobile no:
82831-59149, it is stated that I am resident of above mentioned
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836
address and I started learning the work of denting-painting after
passing my 10th class in year 2015-16. Now I have one workshop
situated near Mini Holland, Mandi Mullanpur under the name and
style of B.R Motors. Yesterday 07.08.2023 at about 4:40 PM I took my
car make Swift bearing registration number PB-22H-9291 whose
denting-painting work was pending to Car Bazar, Ayali Chowk,
Ludhiana from my workshop and at about 5:20 PM I took my car from
said Car Bazaar and was going to Mullanpur and on my way I took
some smoking material (Cigarettes-Bidi etc.) from one Khokha Shop)
situated on the left side of PTCE Badowal from Railway Crossing
Badowal and I along with my friend namely Sagar @ Bhalu resident of
Mandi Mullanpur in said car make Swift were smoking, meanwhile two
young persons dressed as Nihang Sikhs came near our car and they
were standing there and they got stopped us and asked that where are
you going, on which I told them that we are going to Mullanpur. They
told me that our motorcycle is out of fuel and kindly took us along with
you. On which I took both the said Nihang Sikhs along in my car and
we left from there. Meanwhile when we reached at main GT Road and
turned towards Mullanpur City then one of the Nihang Sikh called to
some person and told that our motorcycle is out of fuel, kindly refill the
fuel and stand near PTCE Badowal and get me communicate with that
Khokha (shop) owner and took motorcycle from there. Thereafter when
my car reached in front of the Baba Zahir Bali Badhowal then the
Nihang Sikh who was sitting on the back seat took out his pistol and
pointed it towards the temple of my friends namely Sagar @ Bhalu. I
stopped my vehicle, on which my friend namely Sagar @ Bhalu ran
away towards backside after opening the door of the car and both the
Nihang Sikhs present in the car told that get out from the car otherwise
we will shoot you. I protested for the same then the Nihang Sikh sitting
on the back seat of the car opened a fire shot of his pistol towards me
and it hit on the bicep of my left arm and pierced through it and the
other Nihang Sikh pulled me out from the car by opening the door and
took me out from the car and both the said Nihang Sikh snatched my
car make swift bearing registration number PB-22H-9291 and ran
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836
away towards Mullanpur Mandi Side. There was flow of blood from my
arm, due to which several passers-by got together at the spot and I
took lift from some motorcycle rider and reached at my workshop at
Mullanpur Dhaka, Where one Birbal took me to Civil Hospital Sudhar
in his car make Creta. They referred me further to Civil Hospital
Ludhiana and from there I was got admitted to Bhiwan Hospital,
Kaccha Malk road, Jagraon by my father namely Satpal Rathore after
arranging a vehicle. Here my treatment is going on. Kindly take
required legal action against both the said unknown Nihang Sikhs. I
have got recorded my statement to you, heard it as correct. SD/- Rahul
verified by SD/- Satpal Rathore attested SD/ - Dharminder Singh ASI
PS Dhaka dated 08.08.2023"
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case and no role whatsoever has been attributed to
the petitioner, who was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of another
co-accused namely Sukhwinder. He further submits that as per the version narrated
in the FIR only two Nihang Singhs have been named, who came close to the car and
took lift and thereafter pointed out pistol towards temple of one sagar and finally
succeeded in snatching the car in question.
It is also asserted on behalf of the petitioner that neither he was named
in the FIR nor was present at the spot, but was taken subsequently on production
warrant, as he was already in custody in another FIR bearing No.388 dated
09.08.2023.
On behalf of the State
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,
which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present petition stating that
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836
the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in multiple cases. He further
asserts that the gun shot was fired and there were unknown persons as well out of
which one is the petitioner, but he could not refer to any material to corroborate and
substantiate his argument from the FIR or from any other document.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has already
suffered incarceration of 1 year, 2 months, as is evident from the perusal of the
custody certificate added with the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands
presented on 05.02.2024, charges stands framed on 05.04.2024 and out of total 17
prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far, meaning thereby conclusion
of trial shall take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping
the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, which would curtail right of
the petitioner for speedy trial and expeditious disposal, as enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution of India as has been time and again discussed by this Court,
while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. Relevant paras of
the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"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
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836
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
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
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836
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
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."
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and
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.
As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner
in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court
rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of
Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail,
the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time
it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be
looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to
the evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the
rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all
probability would lend the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.
5. DECISION:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby
directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145836
In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
08.11.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
