Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parminder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 29 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
CRM-M-3445-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.215 CRM-M-3445-2024
Date of decision : 29.10.2024
PARMINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Thukral, Addl. AG, Haryana and
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has
been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.285
dated 17.09.2023, under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC, registered at Police
Station Barara, District Ambala.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was moved by
Kamaljeet Singh, who alleged that he was involved in finance work. His
brother-in-law, Rupinder Singh, had given him Rs. 6 lacs to arrange for his
nephew's travel abroad. On 16.9.2023, around 8:00 pm, while Kamaljeet
was inside his house and his wife was at the gate, an Innova car stopped
nearby, Three individuals alighted from the car, who forcibly entered the
house. Later three more individuals came there and at gunpoint, they
threatened the complainant and forcibly took Rs. 6 lacs in cash, a gold kara,
four rings and his mobile phone. On the basis of CCTV footage, the car was
identified and Parminder Singh-petitioner, who was driving, was
apprehended and identified by the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that
offending vehicle is not owned by the petitioner and the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has undergone an actual
custody of 01 year and 27 days and he has clean antecedents.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has filed
custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per
custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year
and 27 days and there is no other case registered against the petitioner. He
on instructions from the concerned police official submits that challan was
presented on 02.12.2023 and charges were framed on 04.03.2024 and out of
total 23 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
6. Admittedly, the challan was presented on 02.12.2023 and
charges were framed on 04.03.2024 and out of total 23 prosecution
witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined till date. The petitioner has
undergone an actual custody of 01 year and 27 days and there is no other
case registered against him.
7. It would be unjust to keep him behind bars looking at the
condition of the jails which are not conducive for rehabilitation process and
detaining the accused persons in jails would also tantamounts to violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and
is against the principle "Bail is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in
the judgment of Apex Court in "Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
KAVITA NAIN and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22".
8. As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the
petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance has been placed upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi
Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that
the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding
a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected
solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another case. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of
criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent
cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to
find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been
charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing
away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
9. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is
not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for
some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending
trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. The Apex Court in "Abdul Rehman
Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another", 1992(2) RCR
(Criminal) 634 observed that Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21
encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial,
appeal, revision and retrial.
10. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner
shall be established during the course of the trial. The conclusion of the trial
will take a considerable time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that further
incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any purpose.
11. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it
may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness(s).
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is
suspected.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail
before this Court.
13. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would
proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which
are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
29.10.2024
Kavita
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
