Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhchain Singh Alias Mitha vs State Of Punjab on 22 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154411
CRM-M-57499-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
222 CRM-M-57499-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 22.11.2024
SUKHCHAIN SINGH ALIAS MITHA
...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Manoj R. Sharma, 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 BNSS, 2023
seeking the concession of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR No.190
dated 28.08.2023, under Sections 379-B(2), 341, 411, 120-B, 34 IPC,
1860 registered at Police Station Ranjit Avenue, District Amritsar.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
'Staternent of Yashpal Chandel Son of Shri Desh Raj r/o
Village Dabrog Tehsil Sarka Ghat District Mandi Himachal
Pradesh, aged about 40 years, Mob. No. 82880-15229 stated that I
am resident of above said address and now reside in a rented
accommodation at H.No. 57-D Guru Amardas Avenue Amritsar of
Amarjit Singh along with my family and working in Caracol India
Pvt. Ltd. as a sales Manager. Today at about 1:38 in the afternoon,
I was going from Green Avenue to Ranjit Avenue E Block Dealer
Indian Marble and Gray Night and when I was gone ahead to
Community Hall, a Black Activa without number plate upon which
three haircut young men were riding, stopped their Activa in front
of my Activa, meanwhile a motorcycle marka Hero Honda also
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154411
came there, on which two young men were riding, one was a
Sardar young man, who wore a yellow parna and the other young
man was hair cut person and two young men sitting behind without
number plate Activa color black came to me and took out a pistol
from their box and pointed towards me then't moved aside from the
Activa out of fear then they took my Activa bearing registration
number PB-02-ED-1729. Legal action should be taken'
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 even perusal
of the FIR shows that neither the name of the petitioner is mentioned in
the FIR nor any recovery has been effected from him. He submits that
the petitioner has been nominated in the instant FIR only on the basis of
disclosure statement made by co-accused Jatinder Singh and at that time,
the petitioner was behind the bars in one another case. He further submits
that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind
the bars as investigation is complete, challan stands presented on
16.02.2024, charges have been framed on 24.09.2024 and out of 11 PWs
no PWs has been examined till date.
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 11 months and 29
days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that stating that
the petitioner is involved in other FIRs also, meaning thereby he is a
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154411
habitual offender but is not in a position to controvert the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
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. 11
months and 29 days, neither the name of the petitioner is mentioned in
the FIR nor any recovery has been effected from him, he was nominated
in the instant FIR only on the basis of disclosure statement, more so, at
that time he was behind the bars in another FIR, 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 16.02.2024, charges have been framed on
24.09.2024 and out of 11 PWs no prosecution witnesses 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
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154411
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 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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154411
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 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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154411
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 land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the
concession of bail.
5. Decision:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154411
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
22.11.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
