Punjab-Haryana High Court
Veeru Alias Meeru vs State Of Punjab on 23 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138862
CRM-M-51404-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
222 CRM-M-51404-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 23.10.2024
VEERU ALIAS MEERU ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Rahul Rana, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of the
BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 128
dated 21.08.2023 registered under Sections 326, 506, 148, 149 IPC, 1860
registered at P.S. Dakha, District Ludhiana.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR read as under :-
'Statement of Vijay Kumar son of Necla Nath. R/o Prem
Nagar. Mohalla Police Station Dakha Mullanpur. District
Ludhiana aged about 55 years MOB. 98141-82889, stated that I
am resident of above mentioned address and I have kept domestic
animals at my home and I look after them that on dated 9/8/2023
at around 8/PM, I was going to see my animals and I just reached
near by Railway Line then suddenly Veeru @ Meeru s/o Neela
Nath, Sheelo w/o Neela Nath residents of Prem Nagar. Mullanpur,
who are my brother-in-law and sister-in-law in relations and their
son namely Raja s/o Sadiq and Bagha s/o Makhan residents of
Nanaksar Jagraon and 2-3 other unknown persons surrounded me
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138862
CRM-M-51404-2024
and then they asked me what happened then Shello said caught
hold him, let him teach a lesson of fighting with us then Raja and
Bagha both caught hold me from my arms and Veeru @ Meeru
attacked with iron rod that he was holding on back side of my head
due to which blood started falling from my head and then I raised
shout of 'Marta-Marta' then all these accused persons after seeing
people gathering ran away from the spot by giving me life threat.
The motive behind this was carlier one dispute was also held with
them in past due to which they attacked me again. Then my son by
arranging vehicle admitted me in 'Civil Hospital. Sudhar, Civil
Hospital have referred me to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana and from
where I have been referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh, before this I got
recorded my statement, I will got recorded my statement after
getting better. Today after getting better, after visiting you along
with my son Vicky I got recorded my statement. I have got recorded
my statement, heard found correct. The action be taken. I have
presented you my CT Scan. LTI Vijay Kumar. Attestation S/- Vicky
verified by sd/- Subhash Chand.'
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 12 days in lodging the FIR as the alleged occurrence
took place on 09.08.2023 whereas FIR has been lodged on 21.08.2023.
He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.03.2024 and the co-
accused has already been granted bail by the Trial Court. He submits that
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 8
Prosecution Witnesses, none has been examined so far.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138862
CRM-M-51404-2024
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 6 months and 27
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 one more FIR 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
22.05.2024 and charges stands framed on 03.6.2024.
4. Analysis
From the above case it can be culled out that the petitioner
has already suffered sufficient period in custody i.e. 6 months and 27 days
co-accused has already been granted concession of bail by the Trial Court,
there is unexplained delay of 12 days in filing the FIR 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 22.05.2024 and charges stands
framed on 03.6.2024 out of 8 prosecution witnesses, none has 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.
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
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138862
CRM-M-51404-2024
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.
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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138862
CRM-M-51404-2024
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.
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.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138862
CRM-M-51404-2024
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 FIR is concerned, reliance can be placed upon
the order of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as
"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
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138862
CRM-M-51404-2024
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 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.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
23.10.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
