Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhchain Singh @ Cheena vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113656
CRM-M-39155-2024 (O&M) -1-
213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-39155-2024 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 02.09.2024
SUKHCHAIN SINGH @ CHEENA
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Chahit Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
CRM-34166-2024
This is an application under Section 528 BNSS for amendment
of head note in the main case whereby inadvertently Section 326 IPC could
not be mentioned because these sections were added later on.
Notice in the application.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG,
Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State, who has no
objection in case the above said application is allowed.
In view of the assertions made in the application as well as no
objection suffered on behalf of the State, the application is allowed and
Section 326 IPC is added in the head note of the petition.
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113656
CRM-M-39155-2024 (O&M) -2-
The application stands disposed of.
CRM-M-39155-2024
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
483 BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.02, dated
07.01.2024, under Sections 307, 379-B, 323, 324, 326, 506, 148, 149, 411,
201 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station
Dhanaula, District Barnala.
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
"Duplicate statement, Statement of Surinderpal Urf Bala
S/o Mohan Lal R/o Sangar Patti Dhanaula aged about 62
years M.No.98152 16615. It is stated that I am resident of
above said address and does the work of agriculture
along with transportation. On dated 06.01.2024 I
alongwith my brother Sanjeev Kumar S/o Mohan Lal R/o
Dhanaula and Arashdeep Sharma @Ram Patarkar R/o
Dhanaula, Sohanjeet Singh S/o Ram Singh R/o Bhathla
Road, Dhanaula and Chaindeep Singh S/ Satnam Singh
R/o Rajgarh road Dhanaula were irrigating the wheat
crop near bye pass bridge, Mana Pindi Dhanaula. It was
about 4.15 PM Arashdeep Sharma left his 32 bore license
revolver on the chair under my supervision and went for
urinating in the field and other persons were working in
the field. That when I was taking sun bath I saw 5-6
motorcycles coming ahead of XUV Vehicle and three
persons each were riding on one motorcycle and the said
persons were armed with baseball, swords and other
deadly weapon and 6-7 persons alighted from XUV
Vehicle and came towards me in speed out of which out of
which one was Gurmeet singh @Kala S/o Gurjant Singh
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113656
CRM-M-39155-2024 (O&M) -3-
R/o Dhanaula who fired 2-3 shots towards him with
intention to kill me out of which One fire hit on my right
shoulder and in order to save myself, when I picked up
the 32 bore revolver lying near me which belongs to
Arashdeep Singh @Patarkar, Gurmeet Singh along with
his companions came near to him and started scuffling
with me and Gurmeet Singh snatched my 32 bore
revolver then out of them one person Rupinder Singh
@Ravi S/o Rajpal Singh inflicted injury underneath my
right ear with brick and I fell down. That thereafter two
persons caught hold my arms and two persons caught
hold my legs and Gurmeet Singh @Kala Dhanaula and
Sukhchain Singh @Cheena S/o Nachatar Singh R/o Maur
torn my clothes and thereafter Gurmeet Singh and
Sukhchain Singh took sword and Baseball respectively
from his companions and gave number of blows on both
my legs. That thereafter all the said persons started
beating me with their respective weapons. Then I raised
alarm which attracted my companions and on seeing
them the accused persons ran away from the spot along
with their weapons and vehicles. That Rupinder Singh
also took away my mobile phone make Oppo bearing
M.No.98152-16615, 62836-20058 and Gurmeet Singh
took away 32 bore revolver alongwith him and also fired
2/3 shots from my revolver. That thereafter my brother
and friends arranged vehicle and got me admitted in the
hospital."
3. Contention
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the
prosecution story, the petitioner had given blows with baseball on the legs of
the complainant, which would not attract Section 307 IPC against him. He
further contends that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113656
CRM-M-39155-2024 (O&M) -4-
present petitioner. It has been asserted on behalf of the petitioner that no
incriminating material is available with the prosecution to connect the
petitioner with the commissioning of the alleged incident. It has been
submitted that co-accused persons, namely, Davinder Singh, Sehajpreet
Singh @ Ashu Sekha Wala, Akashdeep Singh @ Ashupreet Singh Brar,
Gurwinder Singh @ Babbu @ Nattiala, Pardeep Singh, Gobind Singh @
Gobi and Roshan Singh have been granted the concession of bail by learned
Sessions Judge, Barnala vide orders dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-2),
03.06.2024 (Annexure P-3), 03.06.2024 (Annexure P-4), 02.05.2024
(Annexure P-5), 01.05.2024 (Annexure P-6), 24.04.2024 (Annexure P-7)
and 10.04.2024 (Annexure P-8).
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record.
He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner is
a habitual offender as he is involved in three more cases, wherein he is on
bail in two cases and on production warrant in one case.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 05 months
and 15 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; co-accused
persons, namely, Davinder Singh, Sehajpreet Singh @ Ashu Sekha Wala,
Akashdeep Singh @ Ashupreet Singh Brar, Gurwinder Singh @ Babbu @
Nattiala, Pardeep Singh, Gobind Singh @ Gobi and Roshan Singh have been
granted the concession of bail by learned Sessions Judge, Barnala vide
orders dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-2), 03.06.2024 (Annexure P-3),
03.06.2024 (Annexure P-4), 02.05.2024 (Annexure P-5), 01.05.2024
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113656
CRM-M-39155-2024 (O&M) -5-
(Annexure P-6), 24.04.2024 (Annexure P-7) and 10.04.2024 (Annexure P-
8); Section 307 IPC would not be attracted in the instant FIR against the
present petitioner as the injury is on the non-vital part of the body added
with the facts that investigation is complete, challan stands presented to
Court on 12.06.2024, charges are yet to be framed and total 43 prosecution
witnesses are yet to be examined, which is suffice for this Court to infer that
the conclusion of trial will take a long time for which the petitioner cannot
be detained behind the bars for an indefinite period.
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.
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113656
CRM-M-39155-2024 (O&M) -6-
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 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
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113656
CRM-M-39155-2024 (O&M) -7-
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.
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
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113656
CRM-M-39155-2024 (O&M) -8-
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 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
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113656
CRM-M-39155-2024 (O&M) -9-
in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of
concession of bail.
5. DECISION:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on his 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)
02.09.2024 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
