Punjab-Haryana High Court
Goni @ Sivraj Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148824
CRM-M-55910-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
212 CRM-M-55910-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 14.11.2024
GONI @ SIVRAJ SINGH ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of Regular Bail to the
Petitioner in FIR No. 76 dated 05.07.2024 under Section 341, 324, 148,
149 IPC (Section 326 IPC (118 (2) of BNSS and Section 201 IPC (238 of
BNSS added later on) P.S. Majitha Amritsar (Annexure P- 1), keeping in
view the peculiar facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
'Statement of Kanwaljit Singh son of Gursewak Singh
resident of village Ludhar, P.S. Majitha, District Amritsar age 25
years mobile No. 86694-03415 states that I am resident of above
said address. I was doing the work of welding. On 22.06.2024 at
10.30 AM I was coming back home after doing the work of Satnam
Singh @ Sattu of our village when I reached near the water tank of
village Ludhar then there Harman son of Laddu armed with datar,
Goni son of Laddu armed with datar, Vishal Sharma armed with
Kirpan, Jodha son of Flancha armed with datar and Laddu son of
Balwant Singh armed with datar all residents of village Ludhar,
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148824
P.S. Majitha were already standing with their weapons. When I
reached near than all the above said persons surrounded me and
Harman gave a lalkara to catch hold. Today I should not go unhurt
teach him (me)Hemant a lesson for quarrelling with us on which
all of them attacked with their respective weapons upon me. Goni
above said gave blow of datar with intention to kill me on my head
I raised both my hands on my head, so the datar hit on my left
wrist. Harman above said gave a blow of his datar with intention
to kill me on my head and I raised my hands above my head and
the datar hit on the little finger of the right hand. Jodha Singh
above said gave two blows of datar on my right leg and blow the
knee. Vishal Singh above said gave a blow of Kirpan twice on my
right knee, Laddu above said gave a blow of his datar on the left
knee, Vishal gave the blow of the dasti Kirpan below my left knee,
Harman gave a blow of his datar on my right foot on the upper
part. Harman gave the blow of datar below the right knee. Jodha
gave two blows continuously on below my right knee. Goni gave
the blow of the datar on the back side of my right hand. I raised
rola of Mar Ditta Mar Ditta then on hearing my rola Teja Singh
son of Narender Singh and Maggu son of Major Singh resident of
Ludhar came on the spot on seeing them, all the persons fled with
their respective weapons. The motive is that all the above said
persons had earlier also quarrel with me regarding which I had
given an application at Majitha Police Station. Regarding which
the respectables had got the matter compromise with respect to the
above said grudge all the above said persons has given me injuries
with intention to kill me. Action be taken against them. The
respectables have been trying for effecting a compromise between
us it could not materialized. I have recorded my statement. Heard
it. It is correct Sd/ Kanwaljit Singh.'
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 there is
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148824
unexplained delay of 14 days in lodging the instant FIR. He submits that
the petitioner was nominated in the present FIR only on account of
grudge harbored by the complainant. He further submits that the
petitioner has been attributed two simple injuries on the non-vital part of
the body i.e. one injury on left wrist and second injury on the back side of
the right hand. 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 19 Prosecution Witnesses, none has 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.
According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 3 months and 22
days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the
petitioner was member of unlawful assembly and he inflicted two injuries
on the person of the complainant with datar 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
16.10.2024 and charges are yet to be framed.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled
out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 3
months and 22 days, he has been attributed two simple injuries on the
non-vital part of the body, there is unexplained delay of 14 days in
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148824
lodging the instant FIR and antecedents of the petitioner are clean,
meaning thereby he is not a habitual offender, and as per the principle of
the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the
guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case,
challan stands presented on 16.10.2024 and charges are yet to be framed,
out of 19 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far which is
sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take
considerable time and 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:-
"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.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148824
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
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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148824
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."
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
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148824
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.
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
14.11.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
