Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roshan Lal vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137926
CRM-M-14154-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.227 CRM-M-14154-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 22.10.2024
Roshan Lal ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Ravinder, Advocate and
Ms. Sukhveer Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, AAG, Punjab.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has
been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.122
dated 12.11.2023, under Sections 341, 379-B, 120-B & 34 IPC and Section
25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur,
District Gurdaspur, Punjab.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the FIR are that on 11.11.2023
at about 4.15 p.m., the accused-petitioner and his companions snatched
scooter from the complainant-Kanwaldeep Kaur by pointing a pistol on her
head. Name of the petitioner was nominated on the basis of supplementary
statement suffered by the complainant on 13.11.2023. The accused-
petitioner was arrested on 14.11.2023 and he was identified by the
complainant.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137926
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the
FIR and he has been nominated as an accused on the basis of supplementary
statement suffered by the complainant. The petitioner has undergone an
actual custody of 11 months and 03 days and is involved in one another
criminal case.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the
petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has
filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As
per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 11
months and 03 days and is involved in one another criminal cases and he is
not on bail. He on instructions from the concerned investigating officer
submits that challan was presented in Court on 05.01.2024 and out of a total
of 15 prosecution witnesses, till date, no prosecution witness has been
examined. In view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not
entitled to the concession of regular bail.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
6. Admittedly, challan was presented on 05.01.2024 and none of
the prosecution witness has been examined till date. The petitioner has
undergone an actual custody of 11 months and 03 days and is involved in
one another criminal case.
7. It would be unjust to keep him behind bars looking at the
condition of the jails which are not conducive for rehabilitation process and
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137926
detaining the accused persons in jails would also tantamounts to violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and
is against the principle "Bail is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in
the judgment of Apex Court in "Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22".
8. As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the
petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance has been placed upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi
Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that
the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding
a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected
solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another case. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of
criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent
cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to
find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been
charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing
away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
9. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is
not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for
some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending
trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. The Apex Court in "Abdul Rehman
Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another", 1992(2) RCR
(Criminal) 634 observed that Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137926
encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial,
appeal, revision and retrial.
10. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner
shall be established during the course of the trial. The conclusion of the trial
will take a considerable time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that further
incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any purpose.
11. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it
may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(I) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the
trial.
(II) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness(s).
(III) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(IV) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is
suspected.
(V) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137926
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail
before this Court.
13. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would
proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which
are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
22.10.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
