Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumit @ Justi vs State Of Haryana on 29 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142247
CRM-M-52881-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
208 CRM-M-52881-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 29.10.2024
SUMIT @ JUSTI ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr.Baljeet Nain , Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of the
BNSS, has been invoked seeking the concession for the grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.373 dated 19.09.2022, under
Sections 147, 149, 302, 307, 323, 341, 364, of the IPC, 1860 (Sections
216 and 325 IPC added and Section 307 IPC deleted later on)
registered at Police Station Narwana City, District Jind.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the
version in the FIR read as under :-
'FIR No. 373 dated 19.09.2022 u/s 302, 307, 323, 341,
364, 147, 149 IPC registered at PS Narwana City, Jind.
Contents of which are: Statement of Ram Roop S/o Ratnu caste
Jaat R/o Keshar Patti Danauda Kalan aged 32 years. Mob No:
8901311952. Stated that I am the resident of the above stated
address and I am an agriculturist. We are four brothers and one
sister. We all reside in our fields of Danauda to Bhikhewala
Road. My brother Satyawan and my sister are married. My
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142247
brother Satyawan has 2 sons, elder one is Gurdeep and the
younger one is Madan. My Nephew Madan is studying in KM
college, Narwana and after that he do domestic job. Today i.e.,
on 19.09.2022 at around 09:30 PM my nephew Madan had gone
to KM College from our home to collect papers related to study.
Then we got information that my nephew Madan had a fight in
the college. Then I along with my family members reached Civil
hospital,Narwana. There I got to know that my nephew Madan
has passed away due to injuries received during fight. Mohit 8/0
Krishan was also admitted in Civil Hospital after sustaining
injuries in the fight. Then me and my family members asked
about the fight. Mohit s/o Krishan R/o Danauda Kalan told
along with Madan s/o Satyawan, us that he Praveen 5/0
Krishan, Ajay S/o Krishan, Deepak s/o Shiv Kumar Sibad, Jatin
S/o Pawan, Neeraj S/o Surendra and Ashnain S/o Naresh R/o
Danauda Kalan were standing in the park of KM College,
Narwana and were talking to each other. Then at around 11:00
AM Sumit @ Justi S/o Salender @Bhuriya caste Barber R/o
Narwana came who already had a alteration with Parveen S/o
Krishan and keeping in mind the enmity Sumit @ Justi
quarrelled with Parveen and thereafter called his friends. His
friend came there and started quarrelling with us. Then he along
with Madan, Ajay, Jatin and Neeraj got afraid and ran towards
Gurthali road on motorcycle. These other friends ran towards
the bus stand on foot. Mohit was driving the motor cycle and
when he reached near village Gurthali then their motorcycle ran
out of petrol they stood on the road and then they were standing
on the road and in meantime Sunil @ Justi, Ankit s/o Magta
morpatti, Narwana, Ramesh s/o Soma @ Bobal and Ashok R/o
Narwana along with 14/15 others came there on their motor
cycles. Mohit and others got scared and then Jatin, Ajay and
Neeraj ran away from there. Sumit & Justi S/O Salender @
Bhuriya caste Barber R/o Narwana and others started beating
Mohit and Madan with sticks and rods and said that today they
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142247
will kill them by taking them to KM college. Then they forcefully
made them sit on the motorcycle and took us to км college,
Narwana. There they caused me and Madan number of injuries
to him and Madan. Sumit @ Justi by making him fall on the
ground gave injury to Madan on the neck by knee. Then when
they raised noise then many boys from the college gathered. On
seeing them the above stated boys ran away on their
motorcycles. Then the boys from the college only called the
ambulance and got they admitted to Civil Hospital, Narwana.
Doctors checked Madan and declared him dead. Then they gave
me the first aid and referred Mohit to edical college,Police
Froceeding: Today 1.6., on 19.09.2022, I was present in the
police station, city Nazwana when I got an information from PB
Moharr that Madan 3/0 Satyapal R/o Dansuda Kalan has been
brought dead at Civil Hospital, Narwana after sustaining
injuries in a fight and Mohit 8/0 Krishan R/o Danauda Kalan is
Injured. Then I along with HC Sarbinder Singh 389 and SPO
Rajesh Kumar 811 along with laptop and printer reached Civil
Hospital on government vehicle PCR 9. Then Doctor's ruqa and
MLR of injured Mohit bearing по. PK/NRW/2022/30 was
received. The doctor had mentioned total 3 injuries and all are
KUO BLUNT. Injury no. 1 is mentioned as Adv NCCT Head
Surgeon Opinion, Injury no. 2 is mentioned as Adv X Ray Right
Forearm, ortho opinion, Injury no. 3 is mentioned as Adv Face
X ray Surgeon Opinion. Then I along with other officials
reached mortuary, Civil Hospital, Narawana. There Uncle
(Chacha) of deceased Madan namely Ramrup and other family
members were present. Then Uncle (Chacha) of deceased
Madan namely Ramrup after long discussions with the family
got recorded the abovestatement. Then after reading, listening
and considering the statement to be correct appended his
Signature under the statement in Hindi. I verified the same.
From the ruga received from doctor, MLR No. PK/NRW/2022/30
and statement of Ramrup offences u/s 302, 307, 323, 341, 364,
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142247
147, 149 IPC are made out. So, the same is being sent to PS City
Narwana by hand through HC Sarbinder Singh 389 for
registration of case. The case be registered and the number be
intimated. The special report of case be prepared and sent to
Illaqa Magistrate and Senior Officials. The Scene of Crime team
be intimated to reach at the spot. I along with other officials are
proceeding with Section 174 Cr PC of Deceased Madan. At Civil
Hospital, Narwana. Sd/- Rajkumar SI. PS City Narwana. Dated
19.09.2022. At 11:55 PM. Upon receiving the above at police
station through HC Sarbinder Singh 389 FIR No. 373 dated
19.09.2022 u/s 302, 307, 323, 341, 364, 147, 149 IPC was
registered at PS Narwana City. Then computerised copied of
FIR will be prepared and copies of special report will be sent to
Illaqa Magistrate and Senior Officials. The case file along with
original documents are being handed Sarbinder Singh 389, PS
City over to HC Narwana for giving the same to investigating
officer SI Rajkumar 190, PS City Narwana for further action'.
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 there is
unexplained delay of 11 hours in lodging the FIR. He submits that the
complainant and the injured eye witness who have already been examined
have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution
during the course of the trial wherein out of 48 PWs only 3 PWs have
been examined, meaning thereby conclusion of trial would take long time.
He has further argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean and
co-accused namely Gaurav @ Bablu and Sumi @ Sinu, Shiv Karan @
Sumit @ Sam, Sahil and Rahul @ Ramesh, Manav and Pardeep @ Obbo
have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide
orders dated 18.07.2024, 22.08.2024, 27.08.2024 passed in CRM-M-
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142247
50055-2023, CRM-M-9623-2024, CRM-M-39251-2024, CRM-M-38853-
2024, CRM-M-40099-2024 and CRM-M-42887-2023.
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 1 year, 10 months
and 28 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the
allegations levelled upon the petitioner are grave as he was a part of
unlawful assembly and committed murder of the deceased by causing
injuries 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
challans stand presented on 23.12.2022, 16.03.2023 and 29.07.2023 and
charges stands framed on 28.08.2023.
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. 1
year, 10 months and 28 days, similarly situated co-accused have already
been granted concession of bail by this Court, antecedents of the
petitioner are clean, meaning thereby he is not a habitual offender,
moreso, the injured who was eye witness has turned hostile 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, charges stands framed on 28.08.2023 out of 48 prosecution
witnesses, only 3 PWs have been examined so far which is sufficient for
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142247
this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable
time and therefore, 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
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142247
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,
(1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142247
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.
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142247
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
9 of 9
