Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prab Simran Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142167
CRM-M-52931-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
209 CRM-M-52931-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 29.10.2024
PRAB SIMRAN SINGH ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Balram Singh, 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 439 Cr.P.C. for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.21 dated 29.01.2024
(Annexure P-1) under sections 302/304 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act
registered at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
'Statement of Raj Singh son of Karam Chand
resident of Odra Police Station Dasuya District Hoshiarpur aged
about 58 years Mo: 94176-01787 stated that I am a resident of the
said address and retired from the Army and currently working at
Rail Coach Factory Kapurthala. My nephew Gurpreet Singh, son
of Joginder Singh, a resident of Odra, aged about 19 years, was
working as a mechanic at Bajaj Motorcycle Agency Dasuya for the
last three years. Who used to come home on foot. Today the time
will around 5:30 p.m. that I was going from Dasuya city to Odra
village on my scooter, so I took my nephew Gurpreet Singh to the
village, where my nephew was changing his clothes. Owner Prab
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142167
CRM-M-52931-2024
simran Singh son of Apinder Sing Resident of Ward No. 07 GT.
Rond Dasuya Police Station Dasuya started to tell him that there is
still work for motorcycles, after his work, you can go told to my
nephew, Prab simran Singh to fight with him and in the meantime
the quarrel between the two increased so his owner Pra simran
Singh came in a frenzy and took out his license pistol from his
pocket and pointed it at my nephew Gurpreet Singh and while I
was watching, he fired a shot which hit my nephew on the left
side of his chest and my nephew Gurpreet Singh fell down. I
shouted Mar Dita Mar, then the said accused ran away from the
spot with his pistol. I arranged a ride and took my nephew to
Civil Hospital Dasuya where the doctor declared my nephew
Gurpreet Singh dead. The grudge is that my nephew Gurpreet
Singh wanted to go home with me, but Prab simran Singh wanted
to do more forced labor on that side, that's why he shot my
nephew. I wrote a statement to you,
heard it, OK, action should be taken SD/- Raj Singh'
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 as per the
FIR, the allegations against the petitioner are that he had fired shot on the
deceased-Gurpreet Singh whereas the petitioner himself brought the
deceased in the hospital as is evident from the medical record. He
submits that the complainant has turned hostile as per the certified copy
of deposition of PW-2-Raj Singh, produced in the Court today. He has
further argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean and 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 17 Prosecution
Witnesses, only 3 PWs have been examined so far.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142167
CRM-M-52931-2024
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 8 months and 24
days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that serious
allegations are levelled upon the petitioner but is not in a position to
controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He very
fairly informs the Court that Section 302 IPC was deleted and Section 304
IPC was added later on in the instant FIR considering the case to be an
accident vide DDR No. 17.04.2024.
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. 8
months and 24 days, antecedents of the petitioner are clean, meaning
thereby he is not a habitual offender, the complainant 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, challan stands presented on 26.04.2024
charges stands framed on 25.07.2024 out of 17 prosecution witnesses,
only 3 PWs have been examined so far which is 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.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142167
CRM-M-52931-2024
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
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.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142167
CRM-M-52931-2024
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
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.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142167
CRM-M-52931-2024
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.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142167
CRM-M-52931-2024
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
