Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153163
CRM-M-54989-2024 -1-
217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54989-2024
DECIDED ON: 21.11.2024
PARWINDER SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. P.S. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the third
time under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in FIR No.87, dated 22.10.2023, under Sections 323, 341, 506,
148, 149 IPC (Sections 148 & 149 IPC has been deleted and Sections 307,
34 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Kiratpur Sahib, District
Rupnagar.
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
"Statement of Tilak Raj Singh S/O Amardev Singh
Resident of Village Chikna, Police Station Kiratpur
Sahib, District Rupnagar, aged about 22 years. Stated
that I am a resident of the above said address, and I am
working as a truck driver. On 19.10.2023, around 10.30
PM I was returning to home after attending the marriage
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153163
of my neighbour Phuman Singh. When I was about 100
meers away from my home, 7-8 boys from my village,
came and surrounded me, thereafter they started beating
me. One of them namely Jassi S/O Madan hit me on the
head and on my back with a iron Rod (Khanda) and
Parminder S/O Jinder hit me on the back and legs with a
kirch and I identified them on the spot, and also their 5-6
companions hit me with sticks and tore my clothes. They
left me there as I was naked in an injured condition.
Thereafter the villagers heard my voice and took me to
Civil Hospital Sri Anandpur Sahib, from where I was
referred to PGI Chandigarh after first aid and where I
am undergoing treatment. Legal action should be taken.
The grudge behind it is that I had an argument with Jassi
and Parminder, during the school time, due to which we
were not in the talking terms. I have recorded my
statement to you, it has been read over to me, the same is
correct. Sd/- Tilak Raj Singh."
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the
prosecution story, the allegation against the petitioner is that he gave kirch
blows on the back and legs of the complainant. He further contends that
there is a delay of three days in lodging the instant FIR as the occurrence
took place on 19.10.2023 and the present FIR has been registered on
22.10.2023. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the injury
attributed to the petitioner is declared to be simple in nature. It has been
contended on behalf of the petitioner that co-accused Jaspal Singh has
already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order
dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure P-13) passed in CRM-M-48919-2024.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153163
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
gave kirch blows on the back and legs of the complainant. He further
submits that the petitioner is involved in one more case, meaning thereby, he
is a habitual offender.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 01 year
and 11 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; there is a
delay of 03 days in lodging the instant FIR; the injury attributed to the
petitioner is simple in nature; co-accused Jaspal Singh has already been
granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated
24.10.2024 (Annexure P-13) passed in CRM-M-48919-2024 in addition to
the fact that the investigation is complete, challan stands presented to Court
on 18.12.2023, charges have been framed on 30.01.2024 and out of total 19
prosecution witnesses only 05 witnesses have been examined so far, 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:-
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153163
"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
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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153163
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 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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153163
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
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.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153163
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.
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)
21.11.2024 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
