Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Singh @ Goli vs State Of Haryana on 18 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149718
CRM-M-54919-2024 -1-
223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54919-2024
DECIDED ON: 18.11.2024
RAM SINGH @ GOLI
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, AAG, Haryana.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
528 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.534,
dated 01.10.2023, under Sections 186, 332, 353, 379-B, 506 and 411 IPC
read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station City Fatehabad.
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
"That to SHO, P.S, Gurunanakpura (Fatehabad). It is
requested that SPO Gamdur Singh no.90, Posted at P.S.
Gurunanak Pura, Fatehabad. On the night of 30th
September/01st October 2023, I and HGH Mukesh
Kumar 1765 along with government motorcycle no.HR
220V-2504, area post Gurunanakpura Fatehabad, on
night patrol investigation crime duty. At around 12.30
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149718
AM, both of us, reached Gurunanakpura Mohalla
locality. Four young boys were standing in the street, two
of whom had wooden sticks in their hands. We went near
them and asked all four, what are you doing here at this
time of night. On which one of the boys pushed me and
the other boy hit me on the back of my leg. As soon as my
friend Mukesh Kumar took the mobile from his pocket to
call for police help, one of the boys hit Mukesh. He
snatched the mobile from Mukesh's hand by hitting him
with a stick on his left hand and said who are you to ask
this and if you meet us here again, we will kill you and all
four ran away from the spot. I personally inquired about
the above four young boys, on which 1 came to know that
among the young boys, Ram Singh alias Goli, son of
Gurjit Singh, resident of Shakti Nagar, Fatehabad, Ajay,
son of Jangir Singh, resident of Gurunanakpura Mohalla,
Fatehabad, Sonu, son of Ashok, resident of
Gurunanakpura Mohalla and one name is known along
with them. An unknown young boy has committed this
crime with us. Which I can recognize when I see them. I
and Mukesh Kumar have presented our 2 MRs to you
along with the application that legal action should be
taken against the above four for snatching mobile
phones, obstructing government duty and threatening to
kill. Gamdur Singh Applicant SPO Gamdur Singh No. 90
Police Post Gurunanakpura Fatehabad. Mo. 80534-
48722 Police action today on 01.10.2023 at Man HC
May EHC Roshanlal No. 717 May Train Government No.
HR-62-2771 whose driver is KRNL Makhan Singh. Patrol
Inspector Juraim Ratia Chungi was present that SPO
Gamdur Singh No. 90 and HGH Mukesh Kumar 1765
with rider no. HR 22GV-2504 Mind met HC and received
the above request and two MLR No NY 344/FTB/2023 D1
01.10.2023 One injury in Gamdur Singh son of Harmel
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149718
Singh C/O Pain with bluish bruise of size for 4x2m
present obliquely over posterior aspect Presented an
injury C/o pain with swelling present over thumb of left
hand no external injury mark seen and after receiving the
MLR case under Section 332, 353, 506 and 379-B was
registered."
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is
on better footing than co-accused Subham Kumar as he has only caught hold
of the complainant. He further contends that co-accused namely Ajay and
Subham have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this
Court vide orders dated 28.05.2024, 13.06.2024 passed in CRM-M-26128-
2024 & CRM-M-27589-2024 respectively.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record.
He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner is
a habitual offender as he is involved in eight more cases.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the total custody period i.e. 01
year and 22 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; the
petitioner is on better footing than co-accused Subham Kumar, who along
with other co-accused Ajay have already been granted the concession of
regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 13.06.2024 (Annexure P-4) &
28.05.2024 (Annexure P-3) respectively in addition to the fact that
investigation is complete, challan stands presented to Court on 18.01.2024,
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149718
charges have been framed on 18.10.2024 and there are 15 prosecution
witnesses cited, which is suffice for this Court to infer that the conclusion of
trial will take a long time for which the petitioner cannot be detained behind
the bars for an indefinite period.
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.
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
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149718
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
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149718
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."
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
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149718
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 land the petitioner in a situation of denial of
concession of bail.
5. DECISION:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby 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:149718
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)
18.11.2024 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
