Narinder Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 1792 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Narinder Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 February, 2025

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016888



CRM-M-1036-2025                                                             -1-



333
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CRM-M-1036-2025
                                         DECIDED ON: 05.02.2025

NARINDER PAL SINGH
                                                              .....PETITIONER

                                    VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                              .....RESPONDENT


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:    Mr. K.S. Dadwal , Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG Punjab

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Relief Sought

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS read

with Section 483 BNSS, has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the

petitioner in case FIR No. 93, dated 05.05.2022, under Sections 420 of IPC,

1860 and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulations) Act, 2014

registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-

1)

2. Facts

Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

"The present case stands registered at the instance of one Harmeet Singh with the allegations that he was introduced to the petitioner by one Gagandeep in March 2021 and an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was demanded by the petitioner for sending the son of the complainant to Canada on study visa and the deal was struck for Rs.23,00,000/-. Despite paying the whole

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016888

consideration, the petitioner did not sent the son of the complainant to abroad and even he did not return the money. The petitioner entered into an agreement wherien, he agreed to return the amount on 05.01.2022 and also issued a cheque of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was also dishonoured. Hence, the present FIR. "

3. Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police

has registered the present FIR falsely, despite of the fact that neither their was

any a cheating nor the petitioner has defrauded the complainant in any

manner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is legally sending the

students abroad on study visa. The complainant himself approached the

petitioner for sending his son to Canada on study visa by taking admission in

Hotel Management and at the initial stage, everthing was informed to the

complainant. It is asserted that even offer letter was received and the

payments were made through Delhi based firm run by Rehan Luthra. Further

assertion is that the visa was refused due to previous refusal for complainant's

brother and in fact the papers submitted by the petitioner were in order and

correct. Rather it was only after visa's refusal of the complainat's son, the

complainant started harassing and humiliating the petitioner.

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 stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in

other cases.

4. Analysis

The custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e., 1 year, 5

months and 13 days and investigation is complete. This Court is sanguine of

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016888

the fact that conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, no useful purpose

would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars, wherein "bail is a

rule and jail is an exception" and it would also violate the principle of right to

speedy trial and expeditious disposal under Article 21 of 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 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

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016888

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

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016888

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 contention of learned State counsel with regard to

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

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016888

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)
05.02.2025                                             JUDGE
Meenu




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




                                        6 of 6