Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh @ Manju vs State Of Punjab on 25 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140631
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
211 CRM-M-51995-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 25.10.2024
MANJIT SINGH @ MANJU ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Y.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S 2023
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 13 dated 07.03.2024
under Sections 61, 1, 14 of Excise Act and Section 420, 467, 468, 120-B
of IPC registered at Police Station Julkan, Patiala.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
'This time a Ruqa written by ASI Nisha Singh
1231/Pta P.S. Julkan, District Patiala has been received by hand
PHG Bhajan Singh 29958 for registration of FIR against Jasbir
Singh s/o Ram Kishan r/o Village Dahar, District Panipat, Deepak
Kumar s/o Dharampal r/o Bidal district Sonipat and unknown
persons u/s 61/1/14 of Excise Act, the contents of which are as
follows, SHO PS Julkan Jai Hind, today I ASI along with ASI
Manjeet Singh 1015/pta, senior constable Amarjeet Singh
2365/PTA, Amandeep Kaur 3407/PTA constable Nirmal Singh
2617/PTA, PHG Gurnam Singh 30224 PHG Bhajan Singh 29958,
PHG Pawan Kumar 30269 were present within the jurisdiction of
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140631
the village Dudhan Gujraan on private vehicle along with laptop
and printer in regard with patrolling of suspicious and bad
elements time at around 7 PM a reliable informer came to me in
person and informed me secretly and Jasbir Singh s/o Ram Kishan
r/o village Dahar District Panipat aged about 38 years, frecnh cut
and Deepak Kumar s/o Dharampal r/o Bidal district Sonipat aged
about 34 years French cut along with their other companions use
to sell spirit/alcohol by taking supply in heavy quantity from the
trucks going towards and from Punjab. Whom are waiting in
vehicle No. HR-56-A 2789 make Mohinder Pick up to take delivery
of Spirit/Alcohol from trick No. PB 65-AH 5713 at village Binjal. If
they be raided secretly then heavy quantity of spirit/alcohol can
be recovered from the above truck PB 65-AH 5713 vehicle No. HR-
56-A 2789 make Mohindra Pick. That the information is reliable
and concrete and therefore the offence under 61/1/14 under Excise
Act is made out against the Jasbir Singh s/o Ram Kishan r/o
Village Dahar, District Panipat, Deepak Kumar s/o Dharampal r/o
Bidal district Sonipat. Therefore ruqa has been send to Police
Station through PHG Bhajan Singh 29958 for registration of FIR
against Jasbir Singh s/o Ram Kishan r/o Village Dahar, District
Panipat, Deepak Kumar s/o Dharampal r/o Bidal district Sonipat.
FIR Be registered and FIR No. be informed. Information be
incharge control send room Patiala. Me ASI along with colleagues
is heading for raid and recovery at the spot. Sd/ ASI Nishan Singh
PS Julkan.'
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 was arrayed
as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused who
was arrested at the spot. He submits that the petitioner was not named in
the FIR and was even not present at the spot. He further submits that the
petitioner was neither the owner of the truck nor was employee of co-
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140631
accused-Sukhwinder Singh who is owner of the truck bearing registration
No. PB-65-AH-5713, therefore, the petitioner cannot be termed as an
accused of selling spirit/alcohol. He has further argued that the
antecedents of the petitioner are clean. He further submits that no fruitful
purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars as
conclusion of trial would take long time as out of total 13 Prosecution
Witnesses, none has been examined so far.
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 6 months and 16
days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating 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
05.06.2024 and charges stands framed on 16.07.2024.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled
out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 6
months and 16 days, antecedents of the petitioner are clean, meaning
thereby he is not a habitual offender, 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 instant case, challan
stands presented on 05.06.2024 and charges stands framed on 16.07.2024,
out of 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far which is
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140631
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. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140631
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
going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision,
reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140631
(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 on his furnishing bail
and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140631
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
25.10.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
