Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak vs State Of Haryana on 4 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-42250-2024
Date of Decision: September 04, 2024
DEEPAK ....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.(ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C, has been
invoked seeking the concession of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR No.230
dated 23.04.2023, under Sections 302, 34 IPC registered at Police Station
Israna, District Panipat.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in
the FIR read as under :-
'It is stated that I Ant Ram S/o Ram kishan R/o village Badhona
Distt. Farukabad (UP) & is presently residing in Purewal colony He has
three son. Yesterday, On 22.04.2023 at the about 7:45 pm his son Monu
aged 19 years had an altercation with Sunny. His son Monu and his
friend Sachin were coming back at their home after purchasing the
vegetables at about 9 pm. When they reached near the shirt factory
sunny and his 3 companions caught hold to them. Sunny gave a knife
SANGEETA blow in the chest of Monu and he immediately fell on the ground. Sachin
told to me then I and my family reached on the spot we shifted our son to
the hospital then doctor declared dead. Action must be taken against
sunny and his companions. Applicant RTI Ant ram 7206935914 dated
23.04.2023'
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 only on the basis of disclosure
statement of Jitender @ Raj. He contends that the petitioner is not even named
in the FIR but was roped in on the basis of disclosure statement of Jitender @
Raj who himself has been named in the disclosure statement of Sunny. He
contends that co-accused namely Jitender @ Raj has already been granted the
concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2024 passed in
CRM-M-18828-2024 (Annexure P-1).
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 almost 01 year 04 months 03 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail 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 10.07.2023 and
charges stands framed on 05.10.2023.
4. Analysis
From the above case it can be culled out that the petitioner has
already suffered sufficient period in custody i.e. 01 year 04 months 03 days and
similarly situated co-accused have already been granted concession of regular
bail by this Court, 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 10.07.2023, charges
stands framed on 05.10.2023, out of 24 prosecution witnesses, only 01 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 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 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
SANGEETA 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 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 the 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 hereby directed to be released on regular bail under 439 Cr.P.C 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
04.09.2024
Sangeeta
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
