Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parvesh Laura vs State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151722
CRM-M-56667-2024 -1-
217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-56667-2024
DECIDED ON: 20.11.2024
PARVESH LAURA
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Satbir Singh Kanwar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG Haryana.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has
been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 4, dated
03.01.2024, under Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 34 of IPC, 1860 and Section 25(1b)a
of Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Sector 14, Gurugram.
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
"To, SHO PS Sector-14 Gurugram Naina Pahuja D/o Ashok Kumar Pahuja
resident of 226/21 Lane no 158 Baldev nagar near Pataudi Chowki Want to
Complaint against Abhijeet Balraj in regard to murder of my sister Divya
Pahuja. She was last went to meet Abhijeet on 01.01.2024 and was last active on
call on 2nd Jan 2024 by 11.50 AM. We tried to contact her phones but her
number was not reachable then went to Abhijeet house located in South Ext-1-21
2nd Floor New Delhi where his friend Balraj was present and was having
Divya's phone. I collected the phone and reached to Abhijeet Gurgaon hotel
where my sister was last present. We requested him to show us the Cameras but
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151722
he kept on denying and arguing with me. In last I called police and they
investigated. I found my sister blazer in Abhijeet hotel and when I was Coming
back from his hotel he handed me over my sister Divya Debit card and pan card
saying she left it with him, where I felt more fishy. In investigation I found blood
Stains on floor and her ring, shoes, sperticals in Abhijeet Store room. Abhijeet
house keepers helped him disposing the body of Divya. House keepers name is
Hemraj and Prakash. Abhijeet also offered people 10 Lakhs to get rid of the
body. Anup his partner also helped him decomposing the body. Divya was the
witness in Sandeep Gadoli case and we have full Surety that Sandeep Sister and
his brother gave money to Abhijeet for the Murder. We request respected police to
investigate Sudesh Kataria and Bharma Prakash Kataria in this Matter in CCTV
clips it is clearly Visible that Abhijeet killed Divya and wrapped her in a white
Sheet and stored her body in his BMW blue car no DD03K2400 It is also clear
that one lady with boy haircut and wearing black white sweater is also involved
in this Murder case. We request police to take a strict action against them. I
registered The FIR in Sector- 14 police station in presence of my mother Sonia
Pahuja today i.e., 03.01.24"
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of 2 nd disclosure statement
suffered by main accused namely Abhijeet, wherein the role attributed to the
petitioner is of supplying 3 country made pistols and 40 rounds to the main
accused Abhijeet and that pistol was used in the commissioning of the offence. He
further contends that petitioner is just being made scapegoat as the main person,
who is said to have supplied the weapons is not apprehended till date, therefore,
the case of the prosecution is based on fictitious and false allegations, as the
recovery whatsoever has not been effected from the petitioner but from the other
co-accused persons.
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
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151722
stating the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in other cases also,
but could not produce any material to connect him with the commissioning of
offence.
4. Analysis
Considering the custody period already suffered by the petitioner i.e.,
10 months and 6 days and no specific role has been attributed him except he has
delivered three country made pistols and 40 rounds to main accused added with
the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands presented on 01.04.2024,
charges stands framed on 07.06.2024 and out of total 50 prosecution witnesses
only 1 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 appear to have been lost sight of with the result that
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151722
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 incarceration has been taken by Parliament by
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151722
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."
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151722
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.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151722
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)
20.11.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
