Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Singh vs State Of Haryana on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140125
CRM-M-51890-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
230 CRM-M-51890-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 24.10.2024
GURNAM SINGH ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. S.S. Pannu, Addl. A.G, Haryana.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for
grant of regular bail in FIR No. 378 dated 17.10.2021 under sections 302,
342, 201 and 120-B of IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Safidon,
District Jind, Haryana.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR read as under :-
'Stated that I am resident of the above address and I am a
housewife, I have three children, 2 girls and one boy. Yesterday on
16.10.2021 at around 4 o'clock, my son Prince Pal went from home
while saying that he is going to his uncle's son's birthday party.
After that I called my son at 09.30 p.m and asked why did he has
not come home yet, he said that I have left and will reach home
within 10 minutes. After that I kept calling, he did not pick up the
phone and later the phone was switched off. After this time, around
12.30/01.00 at night, Akash son of Bhag Singh caste Jat Sikh
resident Dera Panchayat Gujrakhiya came to the my house and
told me that both he and the Prince Pal had gone to Rampura
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140125
CRM-M-51890-2024
village, Prince Pal had gone inside the house of Gursaran Kaur
(Prince Pal's friend) daughter of Pindar Singh resident of
Rampura after chatting with her friend on the phone and he was
waiting for him outside the house. After a while, he started hearing
voices from inside the house and heard screaming, so he come here
with Prince Pal's motorcycle, to save him, after that I told about
this to my husband, brother-in-law (Devar), brother-in-law (Jeth)
and other family members. When 4-5 members of my family went
to the house of Rampura Sarpanch to find out, they did not give
any reasonable answer to the members of the family, then we came
to know about lying of my son's body near Asandh Road near Dera
Sacha Sauda, near the Area village Rohad lying on the side
of the road. We then went there and saw the body of my son which
was injured and lying on the side of the road. Then we have
verified ourselves, that Gursaran Kaur daughter of Pindar Singh,
Pindar son of Gurnam, Gurfateh Singh son of Gurnam Singh,
Gurnam Singh son of Satnam Singh resident of Rampura and their
relative Jaswinder Singh alias Jas son of Jagdish resident of
Chowgama in connivance with their daughter Gursaran Kaur who
has called Prince Pal at their house and they all have killed Prince
Pal by giving him injuries and they have put his dead body in car
bearing no. HR 26 DP 0035 owned by Jaswinder Singh alias Jas
and thrown his dead body at the road side near Gurudwara Sacha
Sauda area of village Rohad. All of these above have brutally
beaten my son and killed him, strict legal action should be taken
against all of them. I have given my statement to you, I have heard
and understood the same. RTI Baljeet Kaur ATTESTED
KRISHAN KUMAR SI/SHO Ps Sdr Safidon. Dt. 17.10.21'
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 as per
the plain reading of the FIR, no specific role has been attributed to the
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140125
CRM-M-51890-2024
petitioner who was 75 yeas of age at the time of alleged commissioning
of the offence that took place on 17.10.2021. He further submits that the
petitioner was roped in the instant case only with the motive to drag each
and every family member, despite the fact that even after the investigation
and in the challan no incriminating material could be referred by the
prosecution against the petitioner. He has further argued that the
antecedents of the petitioner are clean and 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, 10 months
and 23 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the
petitioner has played active part in conspiracy and was present at the time
of occurrence but is not in a position to controvert the submissions made
by counsel for the petitioner.
4. Analysis
From the above case it can be culled out that the petitioner
who was 75 years of age at the time of alleged commissioning of the
offence has already suffered sufficient period in custody i.e. 2 years, 10
months and 23 days, antecedents of the petitioner are clean, 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
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140125
CRM-M-51890-2024
instant case after framing of charges on 05.08.2022, out of 29
prosecution witnesses, only 16 PWs have been examined so far which is
sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take
considerable time and 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:140125
CRM-M-51890-2024
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:140125
CRM-M-51890-2024
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.
5. Decision:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail under Section 439
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140125
CRM-M-51890-2024
Cr.P.C. on his/her 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
