Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajveer Singh Alias Tutt Alias Rajdeep ... vs State Of Punjab on 9 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117848
CRM-M-43364-2024 -1-
210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-43364-2024
DECIDED ON: 09.09.2024
RAJVEER SINGH ALIAS TUTT ALIAS RAJDEEP SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Paras Jagga, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.46,
dated 25.02.2024 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 395, 384 and 120-B IPC
(Sections 473 and 411 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station
Sahnewal, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
Statement of Amarjit Yadav son of Ram Nath Yadav,
resident of Village Parsa @ Sirsiya, police station
Tamkhui Road, District Khusi Nagar, UP at present
resident of Street No. 6/7, New Satguru Nagar, Lohara,
police station Sahnewal, Ludhiana age approximately 43
years, mobile no. 98726-49186 that I am the resident of
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117848
the above said address and works as a Manager in
Bhavya Enterprises Factory, Kanganwal Road, Jaspal
Banger: The accounts pertaining to the cash of the
company and with regard to the workers is retained with
me. On dated 24.02.2024, advance was given to the
workers and the remaining amount out of that was taken
at home by me and on dated 24.02.2024 at time
approximately 9:30 PM, I was present at my home then
7/8 unknown persons having muffled faces came from
outside, who were holding iron rods and dattar in their
hands. Three persons out of them, held me and two
persons caught hold my son and made him stand with
wall on one side and the other persons by breaking lock
of my Almirah, took out the cash lying in that, gold and
mobile phone make INFINIX NOT-II containing SIM No.
8264734186 and fled away from the spot. I kept on to
search them my own level till now. Now I have come to
know that the persons who snatched my money are Vijay
@ Kala son of Ram Lal, Mohalla New Satguru Nagar,
Ludhiana, Harjinder Singh Sukhvir Singh @ Fauji son of
Gurcharan Singh, resident of Near Malli Chowk
Ludhiana, Tat son of Sarwan Singh resident of Near
Bhutni Dealer, Garib Nagri, Jaspal Banger, Ludhiana,
Deepak son of Sarwan Singh resident of Near Bhutni
Dealer, Garib Nagri, Jaspal Banger, Ludhiana, Abhishek
@ Chirkut, Deepak Gupta son of Amrik Gupta resident of
Near Mahadev Mandir, Mahadev Nagar, Ludhiana and
fled away by snatching the mobile. I will inform you later
on, after checking about the money and gold as how
much that was. Today, I alongwith Gurdeep Singh son of
S. Mehar Singh resident of Model Town Extension Kothi
No. 3727/23, Ludhiana were coming to inform you, you
have met, statement has been got recorded, heard, it is
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117848
correct. Appropriate legal action may be taken against
the above said persons. Sd/- Amarjeet Yadav."
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the
prosecution story, one iron daat along with currency notes of Rs.25,000/-
and two karas of silver were recovered from the present petitioner. He
further contends that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged crime
as no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. It has been contended
on behalf of the petitioner that his co-accused, namely Sukhbir Singh and
Prince @ Prince Kumar have been granted the concession of bail by this
Court vide orders dated 27.05.2024 (Annexure P-5) and 29.08.2024
(Annexure P-4) respectively.
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
along with other co-accused persons entered into the house of the
complainant while being armed with iron dattars and even kept the son of
the complainant as hostage and, thus, threatened the complainant and his son
of their life.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 06 months
and 03 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; co-accused,
namely, Sukhbir Singh and Prince @ Prince Kumar have been granted the
concession of bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.05.2024 (Annexure P-
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117848
5) and 29.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) respectively in addition to the fact that
investigation is complete, challan stands presented to Court on 24.04.2024,
charges are yet to be framed and total 13 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.
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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117848
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 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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117848
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."
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117848
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.
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)
09.09.2024 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
