Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sidharth Dahiya Alias Sunny vs State Of Haryana And Another on 28 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141610
CRM-M-52739-2024 - 1-
220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-52739-2024
DECIDED ON: 28.10.2024
SIDHARTH DAHIYA @ SUNNY
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate
for respondent No.2-complainant.
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.457, dated 15.08.2024,
under Sections 3 (5), 304, 309(4), 238 (a) (added later on) of BNS, 2023, registered
at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat (Haryana).
2. Facts
The facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
To, SHO Sir, Police Station Kharkhoda, Sir, requested that I am Rohit
son of Dharampal and I am resident of village Sisana and working in
ZOMAT- Sonipat. That yesterday on dated 14.08.2024, time 10:40 pm,
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141610
CRM-M-52739-2024 - 2-
I left for home on my motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-
79D1286. That time at about 11.45 pm, when I reached near
Kharkhoda Sisana road, near about 1 KM before Nariyana Ashram,
two boys came on Splendor motor cycle and stopped near me on the
pretext of asking for oil. Thereafter one boy had taken out knife and
both the boys started saying that give them whatever I have. Thereafter,
they snatched my mobile phone Mark- VVIO Y22, green color and Rs.
5,000/-and ran away towards village Sisana. I can identify one boy if
he comes in front of me. One of boy, who has knife has covered his face
with cloth. My phone belong to my brother Vikas and I took to him to
whom Sim No. 8053545034 and 8429410435 and IMEI No.
8670950677625171 and 867095067762163. It is therefore requested
that searched the unknown persons who committed the incident and
legal action be taken against them. Sd/- Rohit, 7404675034"
3. Submissions
On behalf of the petitioner:-
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case, as is evident from the fact that FIR
stands registered on 15.08.2024 and the complainant got registered his
supplementary statement on 19.08.2024 wherein, he has named the petitioner as an
accused. He has stated that a compromise has been effected between the parties,
which has been reduced into writing vide compromise deed dated 16.10.2024
(Annexure P-1).
On behalf of respondent-State
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,
which is taken on record. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner has
suffered incarceration for a period of 2 months and 05 days, as of now, who is not
involved in any other case of any nature whatsoever. Though he could not
controvert the factum of compromise, which is annexed with the present petition as
Annexure P-1.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141610
CRM-M-52739-2024 - 3-
On behalf of respondent No.2-complainant.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has not controverted the fact that
the parties have settled the dispute amicably.
4. Analysis
Considering the fact that the parties have compromised the matter,
which is annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-1, meaning thereby, there
is every probability that the petitioner will earn acquittal apart from the fact that
challan stands presented on 06.09.2024, wherein, 11 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 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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141610
CRM-M-52739-2024 - 4-
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.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141610
CRM-M-52739-2024 - 5-
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."
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141610
CRM-M-52739-2024 - 6-
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.
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
6 of 6
