Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karan Kumar Alias Kannu vs State Of Punjab on 20 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151716
CRM-M-56607-2024 -1-
216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-56607-2024
DECIDED ON: 20.11.2024
KARAN KUMAR ALIAS KANNU
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, has been
invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 01, dated
04.01.2024, under Sections 302, 34 of IPC, 1860 and Section 25 and 27 of Arms
Act, 1959 (Sections 307, 212, 201, 120-B of IPC added during investigation),
registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur.
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
"Statemet of Amrik Singh son of Satpal Singh r/o of Dadiana Kalan P.S.
Hariana District Hoshiarpur aged approximately 57 years Phone No::
946377-8536. Stated that I am residnet of abvoe said address and does
Agricutual job. Today dated 04.01.2024 I along with my brother Sandeep.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151716
Kumar Sarpnach @ China son of Satpal Singh r/o Dadiana Kalan P.S.
Hariana. came to our tiles dump stand Dusarka. Then at about 10:00 Am
3 young men on a black. colour motorcycle, out of which one was Anoop
Kumar @ Vicky son of Ashwani Kumar I/o Asalpur P.S Bullowal and
other 2 uknown persons 24/25 years came to our Titles Stand, when my
brother Sandeep Kumar came out our office after paying obeisance then
Anoop Kumar @ Vicky fired on my brother Sandeep Kumar with his
pistol, which was hit upon right side of my borhter sandeep • Kumar chest
thus my brother Sandeep Kumar fell on the ground. Then. Anoop Kumar
fired 3 gunshots towards Satbir Singh son of Harpal Singh r/o Dade Baba
Mohar Singh, Jiwan Singh son of Tarsem Lal r/o Dadiana Kalan and
Deep Singh son of Ashok Kumar r/o Husainpur Gurka P.s. Bullowal, who
were present there. Then Anoop Singh friends who were armed with
Dattar waived there weapons in the air and fled away from the spot on
their motorcycle along with their weapons while abusing my brother
Sandeep Kumar Sarpanch. I with the help of my friends took my brother
Sandeep Kumar to KDM Hospital Hoshiarpur. There Dr. Sahib Checked
my brother and decalred him dead. Then I got my brother Sandeep Kumar
deadbody kept in Civil Hospital Hoshiapru Mourtuary kinldy take an
action against abvoe said accused persons. Statement is recorded with
you.. It is read heard and correct. Sd/- Amrik Singh."
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 disclosure statement suffered
by co-accused namely Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi. It is contended on behalf of the
petitioner that neither any active role has been assigned to him nor injury has been
attributed to him upon the persons of deceased. He further submits that during the
investigation, nothing has been recovered from the present petitioner to connect
him with the commissioning of offence.
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 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151716
stating that the petitioner is a part of conspiracy averred in the challan, though he
could not controvert the fact that no recovery was effected from the present
petitioner during investigation.
4. Analysis
Considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e., 10
months and 1 day and is not involved in any other case, as is evident from the
perusal of the custody certificate; investigation is complete, wherein conclusion of
trial shall take considerable time as out of 30 prosecution witnesses, none has been
examined after framing of charges on 21.09.2024 so far, no useful purpose would
be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for uncertain period, wherein "bail
is a rule and jail is an exception" and it would also violate the principle of right to
speedy trial and expeditious disposal under Article 21 of 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
more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151716
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 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151716
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 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151716
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.
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.
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
6 of 6
