Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lovepreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140069
CRM-M-51820-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
228 CRM-M-51820-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 24.10.2024
LOVEPREET SINGH ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr.Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has
been invoked second time for seeking the concession of regular bail for
the petitioner in FIR No.310 dated 16.11.2021, under Sections 302/120-B
IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR read as under :-
'Copy of statement: Statement of Baljit Kaur widow of
Sukhdev Singh @ Billu son of Kaur Singh resident of Alam Patti
Khyala Kalan, aged about 60 years Mob. No.9815350568. Stated
that I am resident of above mentioned address and do domestic
work. My marriage was solemnized about 32 years ago with
Sukhdev Singh son of Kaur Singh resident of Khyala Kalan. From
me and Sukhdev Singh, one son Makhan Singh @ Giani was born
who is aged about 29 years, whose married was solemnized about
5 years ago with Amritpal Kaur d/o Harmail Singh son of Jora
Singh resident of Lakhat Mal (Distt. Sirsa). After two months of
marriage, my son got separated from me in house by making a wall
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140069
in the house. I and my son were living separately. About 9-10
months ago, child was born to Amritpal Kaur, who died at the time
of birth. We have about one Killa of land. My son Makhan Singh
was doing labour work and my daughter in law Amritpal Kaur was
working in "Satluj Dhaga Mill", Talwandi Mansa Road in the area
of Gehal, who was having illicit relations with Lovepreet Singh son
of Surjit Singh resident of Khokhar Kalan, now resident of Dheer
Wali Gali, Mansa, as Lovepreet Singh was also working in Satluj
Dhaga Mill. Once or twice, Lovepreet Singh had come to the house
of my son Makhan Singh, then my son Makhan Singh said to his
wife Amritpal Kaur that who is this boy, due to which my son
Makhan Singh became suspicious that he is having illicit relations
with Amritpal Kaur and he was stopping Amritpal Kaur from doing
so. Due to which altercation took place between them once/twice.
Yesterday Amritpal Kaur my daughter in law went to his duty at
Satluj Dhaga Mill at about 5 p.m. Amritpal Kaur in connivance
with his lover Lovepreet Singh, in order to clear his way, yesterday
Lovepreet Singh son of Surjit Singh resident of Khokhar Kalan now
resident of Dheer Wali Gali Mansa while coming in the house of
my son Makhan Singh murdered him. I had gone to Ulak in my
relations. Then Amritpal Singh son of Harmail Singh resident of
Khyala Khurd called us then I reached home along with my
relatives. The dead body of my son was lying in the cot, he was
having injuries on right ear and head, blood was there and green
mark was clearly seen on neck. The murder of my son had been
committed by my daughter in law in connivance with Lovepreet
Singh son of Surjit Singh resident of Khokhar Kalan now resident
of Dheer Wali Gali Mansa. Till now we were waiting for our
relatives. Now I along with Amritpal Singh son of Harmail Singh
resident of Khyala Khurd and respectable persons was coming to
you for giving information. You have met at Bus Stand Khyala
Kalan. Legal action be taken against above said Amritpal Kaur
and Lovepreet Singh. Statement has been got recorded to you,
heard and same is correct. RTI Baljit Kaur above said. Witness Sd/
Amritpal Singh son of Harmail Singh r/o Khyala Khurd. Attested
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140069
by Yadwinder Singh Insp. SHO P.S. Sadar Mansa dated
16.11.2021'.
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 as per the
allegations petitioner in connivance with wife of the deceased murdered
son of the complainant namely Makhan Singh. He submits that there is
no eye witness in the present case and the same is based only on
circumstantial evidence. He further submits that the co-accused namely
Amritpal Kaur -wife of the deceased has already been granted concession
of bail by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2024 passed in CRM-M-
17743-2024. He asserts that the trial is moving at snail's pace as is
evident from the record produced by the State, as per the same after
framing of charge on 18.05.2022, out of 22 PWs, only 6 PWs have been
examined so far. He submits that no fruitful purpose would be served by
keeping the petitioner behind the bars as conclusion of trial would take
long time.
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 2 years, 11 months
and 4 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the
petitioner is involved in one more FIR, meaning thereby he is a habitual
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140069
offender but is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by
counsel for the petitioner. He informs the Court that in the present FIR
challan stands presented on 14.02.2022 and charges stands framed on
18.05.2022.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the facts that the petitioner
has already suffered incarceration of 2 years, 11 months and 4 days and
co-accused has already been granted concession of bail by this Court also
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 14.02.2022 and
charges stands framed on 18.05.2022, out of 22 prosecution witnesses,
only 6 PWs have been examined so far which is sufficient for this Court
to infer that the trial is moving at snail's pace and conclusion of the same
is likely to take considerable time, 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
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet
of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140069
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
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 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140069
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
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140069
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
and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140069
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
8 of 8
