Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arji Alias Harji Alias Ajit vs State Of Haryana on 23 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-43763-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 23, 2024
ARJI ALIAS HARJI ALIAS AJIT
....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Virk, Senior 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.417
dated 12.12.2023, under Sections 25 of Arms Act and Sections 34, 393, 397 of
IPC registered at Police Station Rewari City, District Rewari (Annexure P-1).
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in
the FIR read as under :-
'To, Mr. SHO Sahib Police Station City Rewari Sir, I request that
I am Niranjan Lal S/O Shri Raghunath Prasad resident of New Basti
Rewari Police Station City Rewari I have a grocery wholesale shop in
Ganj Bazaar Rewari Today I was walking from my shop towards Katla
Bazaar around 4 o'clock when I took the collect money from the shop of
firm Vinay Kumar Neeraj Kumar Katla and put it in the bag and came
out, three young men of were coming from behind me, one of them came
near me and called out, I stopped there, after that those young boys told
me to take out whatever money you have in this bag and give it to me, in
case of not giving, one of them said to me. He showed me the pistol and
asked me if I would give him the bag or I will shoot him. All three tried
to loot the bag. After that I became alert and held the bag properly and
shouted for help. Hearing my voice, Sundar Lal S/O Kashiram resident
Bala Sarai from whom I had collected money reached me. Besides, other
people from the vicinity also came. Two young men whose names are not
known took advantage of the situation and ran away. A boy who had
called out to me and asked me to stop had a pistol with him. He also
started running and fell down on the way. After that, all the people who
had gathered there controlled him. After controlling him, this boy also
got some injuries due to falling. After that, Sundar Lal and I asked the
boy's name and he told me his name was Arji S/O Ranjeet alias Gopal of
Ward No 6, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat. And after that, we tried hard to
find out the names of the two boys who had come with him and fled after
getting the opportunity, but he expressed his inability to tell their names
and addresses. We, on our part, questioned Aarji about the weapon
(pistol), but he did not tell us anything. Aarji and his two other
companions, whose names are not known, tried to rob the bag
containing money that I had with me by showing the weapon (pistol).
After that, I, Sundarlal and the traders of Ganj and Katla Bazar
informed the police about the incident. After some time, the police
reached the spot. We wrote an application about the incident and
presented the arrested accused Aarji and the weapon found with him to
the police. Justice should be provided by taking the strictest legal action
in connection with the incident. SD- Niranjan Niranjan S/O Raghunath
Prasad New Basti Rewari 12/12/23 9992384189 Police Action Today SI
with HC Jaswant No. 50 with EHC Jagdish No 787 Passenger Vehicle
Government No. HR47GV8034 Driver Rajbir HKRNL Patrol
Investigation crime was present near Kanod Gate Rewari when Police
Outpost Bhadawas Gate received information that 3 young boys have
tried to rob a shopkeeper in Katla Bazar Rewari On receiving the
information, I Sl along with his colleagues on a passenger government
vehicle reached the Katla Bazar, Rewari, where the SI saw a crowd of
some people. On reaching the crowd, I SI inquired about the incident On
enquiring, Niranjan S/O Raghunath Prasad resident of New Basti
Rewari met the Sl and informed him about the entire incident.
Thereafter, Niranjan gave a written complaint to the Sl along with the
above mentioned accused, Arji S/O Ranjeet alias Gopal resident of Ward
no 6 Kharkhoda District Sonipat and the accused presented the country
made revolver used in the incident. The presenter opened the country
made revolver and checked it. On checking it no bullet was found inside
the revolver. After that the revolver was measured. On measurement, it
was found that total length of the revolver was 21 cm, length of barrel
was 7% cm, length of barrel of butt was 16 cm. length of butt was 6%
cm. A separate blueprint of the recovered revolver was prepared and the
above recovered revolver was taken into police possession as evidence
in the present report, on which report the above accused Arji and the
witness signed, the above accused Arji and his two other name and
address unknown associates together committed the crime under section
393,397,34 IPC 25-54-59 ARMS Act, for registering the report, the FIR
was registered with EHC Jagdish No No. 787 It is being sent to police
station after registration and registration of slip number, on the basis of
the case falling under special category, special report of the case should
be sent to the special carrier to duty magistrate and officers and I SI
should also be informed with the slip number I SI is busy for
investigation, today I am busy at the spot, Katla Bazar, Rewari SD-SI
DINESH KUMAR PP B GATE PS CITY REWARI DT 12 12 2023 AT
8.15 PM Today, on arrival at police station, case no. 417 dated 12.12
2023 under sections 393,397.34 IPC 25-54-59 Arms Act, Police Station
City, Rewari, registered and copies of the First Information Report
should be prepared by computer as per rules, and special report of the
case should be sent by special carrier EHC Palbir no. 924/ will be sent
to the service of Rewari Area Magistrate Sir and Senior Officer or the
copy of the original complaint along with the police is being sent to the
personal investigator of area EHC.'
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 the allegations against the
present petitioner is of making an attempt to rob the complainant's bag
allegedly consisting of cash but the petitioner was apprehended by the passerby
and therefore, the robbery was averted. He further points out that other two
co-accused who ran away from the spot were arrested later on and were granted
bail by the trial Court vide order dated 08.01.2024 and 12.01.2024 (Annexures
P-3 and P-4) respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no
other case is pending against the petitioner meaning thereby, he is not a
habitual offender.
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 09 months 06 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 on behalf of the petitioner.
4. Analysis
From the above case it can be culled out that as far as role
assigned to the petitioner is concerned he was present at the spot and was
apprehended by passerby, other two co-accused persons who were also part of
the alleged occurrence ran away from the spot and have been enlarged on bail
by the trial Court meaning thereby the petitioner is at parity since the robbery
could not be executed and noting incriminating has been recovered from him;
there is no other case against the present petitioner meaning thereby, he is not a
habitual offender; also the petitioner has already suffered sufficient period in
custody i.e. 09 months 06 days 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 08.02.2024; charges stand framed on 06.04.2024, there are total 10
prosecution witnesses, out of which only 06 prosecution witness have been
examined, 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
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 Section 439
Cr.P.C. 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)
JUDGE
23.09.2024
Sangeeta
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
