Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142256
CRM-M-52754-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
206 CRM-M-52754-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 29.10.2024
PARAMJIT KAUR ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.228, dated 29.08.2020 (Annexure P-1), under Section 346 IPC
(Sections 365, 302, 201, 120-B IPC added later on), registered at Police
Station Sardulgarh, District Mansa.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
'Copy of statement: "Statement of Dharminder
Singh s/o Narinder Singh s/o Mohinder Singh R/o Ward No.4 Sirsa
Kanchian Sardulgarh aged around 42 years mobile No.98157-
10412 stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and I
am doing agriculture work, my mother Gurwinder Kaur had died
in the year 2008 due to cancer ailment as a result of which my
father started living in shock as a result of which my father was
remaining mentally disturbed, since that time my father was having
around 16 killas of land and was also having other moveable and
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142256
CRM-M-52754-2024
immovable properties in his name, then in the year 2017 since my
father was mentally disturbed went from home, we searched him a
lot and enquired at our own level we came to know that power of
attorney of my father has been obtained by Paramjit Kaur w/o
Amrinder Singh r/o Ludhiana presently residing at Modern Valley
Mata Chanchmawri Devi Mandir Kothi Number 208, Sirhind,
District Fatehgarh Sahib, as a result of which me and my family
has firmed belief that my father Narinder Singh has been hidden at
some undisclosed place in illegal custody by Paramjit Kaur w/o
Amrinder Singh, Karanveer Singh s/o Amrinder Singh and brother
of Paramjit Kaur namely Raju residents of Abaidpura presently
residing at Modern Valley Mata Chanchmawri Devi Mandir Kothi
Number 208, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib in collusion of
each other in order to grab movable and immovable property of
my father and due to the greed of property they are torturing my
father, I have suspicion that they can cause loss to the life and
liberty of my father, appropriate legal action may be initiated
against above named persons. I have recorded my statement which
is correct. Sd/- Dharminder Singh.'
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the instant FIR only on the
basis of disclosure statement of Amisha, who happens to be the daughter
in law of the present petitioner who has now turned hostile. He further
submits that the disclosure statement given by her is biased having no
iota of truth in it and no incriminating material in support of that
statement has been made available with the Investigating Agency and still
the police has went ahead to nominate the present petitioner as an
accused at the time of filing of challan. It is further submitted that
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142256
CRM-M-52754-2024
petitioner is having strained relations with her daughter in law, who has
given the statement to the police qua alleging active role of the petitioner
in the commissioning of the offence though he drew attention of this
Court to an affidavit dated 04.06.2021 (exhibited by Amisha) to the effect
that she has been wrongly shown as witness in the instant FIR whereas
she was not present at the spot and the same has been shown to her by the
police authorities as narrated in the FIR.
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 3 years, 3 months
and 24 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the
petitioner is involved in other FIRs also 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
22.02.2021 and charges stands framed on 24.03.2021.
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. 3
years, 3 months and 24 days, moreover, PW-6 Amisha did not support the
version of the prosecution and has been turned hostile and as per the
principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142256
CRM-M-52754-2024
guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt 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
investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142256
CRM-M-52754-2024
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:142256
CRM-M-52754-2024
(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.
As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of
the petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon
the order of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142256
CRM-M-52754-2024
"Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab" decided on
02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the
criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the
same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the
course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in
that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other
pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial
of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all
probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the
concession of bail.
5. Decision:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on 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
29.10.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
