Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139634
CRM-M-48919-2024 -1-
218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-48919-2024
DECIDED ON: 24.10.2024
JASPAL SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Kamal Deep Sehra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, has been
invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 87, dated
22.10.2023, under Sections 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860, offences later on
added and converted into Sections 307, 323, 341, 506, 34 of IPC, 1860 registered at
Police Station Kiratpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
"Copy of statement. "Statement of Tilak Raj S/O Amardev Singh,
resident of village China, Police Station Kiratpur Sahib, District
Rupnagar, aged about 22 years, stated that I am resident of the above
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139634
mentioned address and working as truck driver. On dated 19.10.2023
at about 13.30 PM, I was coming back to my home after giving shagun
on the occasion of marriage in the house of Phuman Singh, a resident
of my village. When I was at about 100 meters away from my house,
then about 7-8 boys of my village surrounded me and started beating
me among whom Jassi S/O Madan hit on my head and back with
khanda and Parminder S/O Jinder attacked on my back and legs with
kirch, whom I had recognised and their 5-6 companions injured my
body with sticks and torn my clothes. They got me nude and left in the
injured condition. The villagers after listening my hue and cry got me
admitted to Civil Hospital Sri Anandapur Sahib. After being given first
aid there, I was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where I am under
treatment, legal action may be taken. Reason for the grudge is that
there was a argument between me and Jassi and Parminder during
studying time in the school due to which we did not have speaking
term. Statement has been recorded, read over and heard, admitted to
be correct. Sd/- Tilak Raj Singh, verified Sd/- Amardev Singh (Father),
Attested: Sd/-Pradeep Sharma, ASI PS Kiratpur Sahib Dt.22/10/2023.
POLICE ACTION: On dated 20.10.2023, a telephonic call was
received from the PGI Chandigarh that injured Tilak Raj S/o Amardev
Singh, resident of China, PS: Kiratpur Sahib was admitted for
treatment of the injuries sustained due to fight vide Regd. CR
No.4925128. But statement of the injured could not be recorded
because I, ASI Pradeep Sharma was engaged in government duty
21.10.2023. So, today I, ASI Pradeep Sharam alongwith Ct. Simranjit
Singh No.7621 R, PHG Kasturi Lal, after reaching at the PGI
Chandigarh, obtained CR Chit of the injured from Police Post, an
application written to the SMO for recording of statement, after
declaring the injured Fit for statement by him, I reached to the injured
Tilak Raj's bed and recorded his above statement, which has been read
over to him, who after being read and heard word-by-word, admitted to
be correct, put his signature in English. His statement has been verified
by his father Amardev Singh. I, ASI have attested the statement. From
the aforesaid statement, offence u/s 307, 323, 341, 506, 34, 148, 149
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139634
IPC has been found to be made out against Jassi S/O Madan and
Parminder S/O Jinder resident of China and 5-6 other unknown
persons. The statement is being sent to the police station through PHG
Kasturi Lal for registration of FIR for the above mentioned offences
against the above mentioned Jassi etc. After getting the FIR registered,
its file number be informed. Senior officers may be informed through
Control Room. I, ASI alongwith colleagues am leaving for the spot.
Sd/-Pradeep Sharma ASI PS Kiratpur Sahib Dated: 22/10/2023. Today
within the limit of PGI Chandigarh AT: 02.50 PM. On receipt of the
statement, above said case has been registered for the above mentioned
offence against Jassi S/O Madan and Parminder S/O Jinder, resident
of Chikna and 5-6 other unknown persons and action got completed.
Copies of FIR are being sent to the Illaqua Magistrate and the officers
through dak. Circle Officer, Sri Anandpur Sahib and Incharge Control
Room Rupnagar is being informed separately through wireless
message. Case file alongwith original statement has been sent to the
ASI Pradeep Sharma 230/R on the spot through PHG Kasturi Lal.
Head Munish, Police Station has been directed to maintain the record.
Bandi Rapat No.23 dated 22.10.2023 entered in Roznamcha of Police
Station Kiratpur Sahib."
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case on the statement of injured namely Tilak Raj.
He further submits that it is surprising that the said villagers who were got attracted
by hue and cry of PW-1 did not witness the alleged offenders fleeing from the spot.
Besides the prosecution failed to provide any eye witnesses to the incident, which
raised doubt in the story of the prosecution.
On behalf of the State
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,
which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present petition on the
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139634
ground that there are allegation of causing hurt using weapons, but he could not
refer to any incriminating material against the present petitioner.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the fact that, the petitioner has already
suffered incarceration of 11 months and 14 days, wherein no incriminating material
is available with the State counsel to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence,
as there are contradictions on the statement of PW-1 added with the fact that
investigation is complete, challan stands presented on 18.12.2023, charges stands
framed on 30.01.2024 and out of total 19 prosecution witnesses 10 have been
examined so far, meaning thereby conclusion of trial shall take considerable time,
no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an
indefinite period, which would curtail right of the petitioner for speedy trial and
expeditious disposal, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as
has been time and again discussed by this Court, while relying upon the judgment
of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139634
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 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139634
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 basic and
fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139634
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.
5. DECISION:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby
directed to be released on regular bail on 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)
24.10.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
