Anshu Alias Arjun vs State Of Haryana
2024 Latest Caselaw 19121 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Anshu Alias Arjun vs State Of Haryana on 23 October, 2024

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138903


CRM-M-51120-2024                                                                 -1-




215


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CRM-M-51120-2024
                                         DECIDED ON: 23.10.2024

ANSHU ALIAS ARJUN
                                                             .....PETITIONER

                                       VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA
                                                             .....RESPONDENT


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:     Mr. Yashveer Kharb, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG Haryana.


SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Relief Sought

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, has been

invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 95, dated

26.03.2024, under Sections 323 & 506 (Sections 201 and 308 of IPC added later

on), registered at Police Station Tehsil Camp, Panipat, District Panipat.

2. Facts

Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

First Information Contents: The copy of complaint is as such, To, Respected SHO Sir, Police Station Tehsil Camp, Panipat. Sir, it is requested that I Deepak son of Rajpal is resident of Dinanath Colony, Near Ashram Panipat and I work as an accountant. On 24.03.2024 at around 10 PM, DJ was playing in the street near our house where

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138903

children were dancing. I also went to watch the DJ. After some time, Arjun son Rajkumar resident of Dinanath Colony, Panipat also came there he was drunk, he started dancing and abusing with everyone.

When I asked him not to abuse, he started abusing and beating me. He picked up a brick and hit me on the forehead and on the left leg and threatened to kill me. Harsh, who was sitting there, freed me from Arjun and took me to the government hospital for treatment. Arjun escaped from the spot, that today I have submitted a complaint to you at Maharaja Agrasen Signus Hospital, Panipat.

3. Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been

falsely implicated in the present case as neither the present petitioner was present on

the spot nor had any nexus with the alleged crime. Further a bare perusal of the

MLR makes it clear that injuries are simple in nature, which does not attract Section

308 of IPC.

On behalf of the State

Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,

which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present petition on the

ground that petitioner is involved in one other case, therefore, does not deserve the

concession of bail at this stage.

4. Analysis

Be that as it may, considering the fact that petitioner has suffered

incarceration of 5 months and 28 days and in the other case, he is on bail, as is

evident from the perusal of the custody certificate, investigation is complete,

challan stands presented on 28.05.2024, charges stands framed on 24.09.2024 and

all 11 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined meaning thereby conclusion of

trial shall take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138903

petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, which would curtail right of the

petitioner for speedy trial and expeditious disposal, as enshrined under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India as has been time and again discussed by this Court, while

relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 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

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138903

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

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138903

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.

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 basic and

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

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138903

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 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 lend the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.

5. DECISION:

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby

directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.

However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be

construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

                                                 (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
23.10.2024                                             JUDGE
Meenu




Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes/No
Whether reportable               Yes/No




                                        6 of 6