Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sham Singh vs State Of U.T., Chandigarh on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140057
CRM-M-44695-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
296 CRM-M-44695-2024 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 24.10.2024
SHAM SINGH ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF UT, CHANDIGARH ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. J.K. Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Viranjeet Singh Mahal, Addl. P.P., UT Chandigarh
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023
for grant of regular bail to the Petitioner in FIR No. 103 dated 08.07.2024
under Section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109 BNS and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act,
Police Station South Sector 34, Chandigarh.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
'Statement of Ankur Panwar son of Rajinder
Singh resident of House No. 3211/1, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh
aged about 28 years gave a statement that he is resident of above
mentioned address and my permanent address is house no. 61/7,
Gali No.4, Mohan Puri, Maujpur, Delhi and was presently working
as Assistant Manager in Share Market at Motilal Oswal, SCO No.
44-45, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Today, at around 12:15/12:30 AM I
along with my friends Khushwinder Singh and Harjinder Singh
who stays with me went to the market of Sector 44-D, Chandigarh
for eating Pizza etc.But we found the market closed due to late
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140057
hours. We started walking back towards our house and we were
walking behind each other, Khushwinder Singh alias Khushi was
walking in front of me and Harinder Singh was walking in front of
me at some distance and were coming back while talking on our
mobile phones with some persons, when we reached on theturn of
House No. 3234, then suddenly from behind from the side of Divya
Public School, two cars and a motorcycle came, and the persons
who were sitting in these vehicles stopped the vehicles in front of
me and many persons alighted from the cars and they were holding
sticks and rod and swords and other sharp edged weapons in their
hands and started walking towards me while abusing me and were
saying to each other to kill me, by saying this they attacked me
with sticks, swords and other sharp edged weapons and I stride to
stop their blows with my hands and I fell on the ground and started
shouting for help then my friend Harinder Singh started throwing
stones at them and after hearing noise people started gathering on
the spot then the assailants fled away in both the cars out of which
one white colour swift car bearing and I do not know the colour of
the other car, they ran away by reversing their vehicles and while
abusing me. As blood was oozing from my head due to injuries
caused by them, because of this reason I could not record the
numbers of the vehicles. That I got to know later that the assailants
in the white swift car and the other car and the white motorcycle
whose number I noted as CH01AM3697, that while fleeing from
the spot they have also fired gun shots in the air. My friends
Khushwinder Singh alias Khushi and Harinder Singh and my
neighbour Gagandeep Singh took me to the hospital, GMCH
Sector 32, for treatment and after taking treatment I came back to
my home. That the assailants come in white swift car and other car
and motorcycle no. CH01AM3697 with an intention to kill me
attacked me with sticks, swords and other sharp edged weapons
and caused injuries on my head and on other places. Strict legal
action be taken against them."
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140057
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 the
FIR was registered against some unknown persons. He submits that in
the instant petition the parties have settled the dispute and in this regard
has placed on record compromise deed dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure P-2).
He seeks parity with co-accused-Puneet Arora who has been granted bail
by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2024 passed in CRM-M-49208-
2024.
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 3 months and 16
days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the
petitioner is also involved in another case under the NDPS Act, meaning
thereby he is a habitual offender but is not in a position to controvert the
submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period undergone
by the petitioner i.e. 3 months and 16 days as of now added with the facts
that similarly situated co-accused has already been granted the concession
of regular bail by this Court and the parties have settled the dispute
which has been reduced in writing vide compromise deed dated
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140057
07.08.2024 which is sufficient for this Court to infer that in any case the
petitioner would earn acquittal, therefore, this Court is of the view that
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
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 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140057
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 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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140057
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
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 FIR is concerned, reliance can be placed upon
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140057
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
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
24.10.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
