Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurlal Singh Alias Guri vs State Of Punjab on 28 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141525
CRM-M-52528-2024 - 1-
217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-52528-2024
DECIDED ON: 28.10.2024
GURLAL SINGH @ GURI
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS has been
invoked seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 56, dated 03.04.2024,
under Sections 307, 323, 34 IPC (Sections 201 and 325 IPC added later on),
registered at Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa.
2. Facts
The facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
"Copy of statement "Statement of Mandeep Kaur wife Kewal Singh son
of Namdev Singh resident of Borawal age about 33 years Mobile No
73411-53608 stated that I am a resident of the above said address and
a housewife. My marriage was solemnized with Kewal Singh son of
Namdev Singh, resident of Borawal, about 16 years ago. We have a son
Sahilpreet Singh, aged about 12 years, from our wedlock. About 10-15
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141525
CRM-M-52528-2024 - 2-
days ago, my husband, Kewal Singh, asked for motorcycle-Rehri from
Sukhchain Singh, alias Bani Fauzi son of Sukhpal Singh, who is our
neighbour, resident of Berawal and had gone on it. The rear wooden
plank of the motorcycle-Rehri of Sukhchain Singh had fallen down
from my husband Kewal Singh, due to which today morning on
03.04.2024, • Sukhchain Singh alias Bani Fauzi took Rs.200/- from my
husband. It would be 05:30 o clock in the evening that my husband
Kewal Singh was standing outside our house and in front of the shop of
Sukhchain Singh alias Bani, which was rented out to Gurlal Singh
alias Guri son of Sartar Singh resident of Gurne Kala, who is doing his
DJ system work and I was also standing at the main gate of our house.
Then Sukhchan Singh alias Bani Fauzi came there and said to my
husband Kewal Singh that you are defaming me in the whole village by
paying me Rs.200/- for a wooden plank. Gurlal Singh alias Guri came
out from his shop holding an iron Patti in his hand. Then Sukhchan
Singh by instigating Gurlal Singh said that today we will teach a
lesson to Kewal Singh for defaming me in the village. Then Gurlal
Singh alias Guri hit my husband Kewal Singh on his head with the
intention of killing him with Iron Patti in his hand, due to which my
husband fell on the ground. Then Gurlal Singh hit the Iron Patti on the
right leg right foot of my husband and while my husband had fallen
down, then Sukhchain Singh kicked my husband with his feet on his
back. I ran and shouted Marta Marta in order to save my husband,
then Sukhchain Singh and Gurlal Singh went from the spot with their
respective weapon. Then in the meantime my Uncle father-in-law
Amrik Singh, son of Gurdayal Singh and my son-in-law Hardeep Singh
of Borewal came on spot, who after arranging the vehicle had admitted
my husband Kewal Singh to Civil Hospital Mansa for treatment, where
now I came to know through phone that my husband is being taken to a
big hospital for better treatment. Gurlal Singh and Sukhchain Singh
alias Bani Fauzi in connivance with each other, gave injuries to my
husband Kewal Singh with intention to kill him. Please take action
against them."
3. Submissions
On behalf of the petitioner:-
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that as per the MLR,
the petitioner has been attributed four injuries on the head, right leg and right foot of
the husband of the complainant and none of the injuries have been declared
dangerous to life, hence, Section 307 IPC would not be attracted. He has put
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141525
CRM-M-52528-2024 - 3-
reliance on the fact that a compromise has been effected between the parties and
considering the said fact, vide order dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure P-2), the co-
accused namely Sukhchain Singh @Bani Fauji has already been extended the
benefit of anticipatory bail by learned trial Court. The petitioner is also similarly
situated with the co-accused, as none of the injuries suffered by the injured has been
declared dangerous to life.
On behalf of respondent-State
Learned State counsel has prayed for dismissal of the present petition
stating that the allegation against the petitioner is that he caused injuries on the
head, right leg and right foot of Kewal Singh with an iron patti. Thus, keeping in
view the nature and gravity of offence, he does not deserve the concession of
regular bail. Though he could not controvert the factum of compromise.
As per the custody certificate filed by learned State counsel, the
petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of 6 months and 20 days, as of
now, who is not involved in any other case of any nature whatsoever.
4. Analysis
Considering the fact the parties have compromised the matter, meaning
thereby, there is every probability that the petitioner will earn acquittal apart from
the fact that challan stands presented on 01.07.2024, wherein, 15 prosecution
witnesses have been cited, which is sufficient for this Court to infer that conclusion
of trial would certainly take sufficient time, this Court is of the considered view that
no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an
indefinite period, which would curtail his right 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
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141525
CRM-M-52528-2024 - 4-
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
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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141525
CRM-M-52528-2024 - 5-
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,
(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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141525
CRM-M-52528-2024 - 6-
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
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 his 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.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141525
CRM-M-52528-2024 - 7-
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)
28.10.2024 JUDGE
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
