Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pintu Singh vs State Of Haryana on 21 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008452
CRM-M No.63075 of 2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
221
CRM-M No.63075 of 2024
Date of decision: 21.01.2025
Pintu Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Saajan Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
(corresponding Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023), is for grant of regular
bail to the petitioner in FIR No.54 dated 27.01.2012 registered under
Sections 395, 397 IPC at Police Station Kundli, District Sonepat.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by
one Devanand, resident of village Badhana, who works for S.L.V.
Security. He stated that on the night of 26.01.2012, while he was on
duty at Minda Factory in village Rasoi, approximately 20 individuals
attacked him. They also apprehended several other persons including
Mohammad Salim, Arjun Singh, Rakesh, Salesh, Narender, and
Surender Jha and the attackers stole several mobile phones, tied up the
victims, and locked them in a room. Some of the perpetrators stole items
from a company store and an almirah belonging to Alok Ji. Devanand
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008452
informed his superiors, H.R.M. Gajinder Singh and Alok Ji, as well as
the police station about the incident. Thereafter, the impugned FIR was
registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
the petitioner is not named in the FIR and 20 unknown persons have
been named and some of the accused were arrested during the course of
investigation and the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only
on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused while in
police custody, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law and
the same is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further
submits that 05 of the accused, who faced the full length trial have been
acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide
judgment dated 05.04.2022 and the petitioner was never aware of the
fact that he has been nominated as an accused and thereafter, he was
declared as proclaimed offender, however, the petitioner was arrested on
05.04.2024 and the investigation of the case is complete.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there
are total 33 prosecution witnesses cited in the list of witnesses, out of
which, none has been examined till date and the trial is likely to take
long time in conclusion and on the basis of the same set of allegations,
the co-accused of the petitioner have already been acquitted and nothing
has been recovered from the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed status report by
way of affidavit of Vipin Kumar Ahlawat, Assistant Commissioner of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008452
Police, Rai, Sonepat, which is taken on record and opposes the prayer
made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner is accused of committing dacoity and he remained absconding
and was declared proclaimed offender, however, he could not controvert
the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind
the bars from the last 09 months and 16 days. Investigation is complete.
The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the
concerned Court. Charges were framed and trial of the case has not
made much progress. Out of 33 prosecution witnesses, none has been
examined so far.
7. A two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI", (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to
prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:
"6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners.
The statistics placed before us would indicate that more
than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute
undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners,
majority may not even be required to be arrested despite
registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with
offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not
only poor and illiterate but also would include women.
Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many
of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the
mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the
investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008452
draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and
thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never
be an impression that it is a police State as both are
conceptually opposite to each other."
8. Further the culpability, if any, would be determined at the
time of trial and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further
detention of the petitioner-accused. Keeping the petitioner in further
detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near
future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
9. In view the discussion above, the present petition is
allowed. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case,
the petitioner - Pintu Singh is ordered to be released on regular bail
during pendency of the trial, on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.
10. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be
expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The
learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own
merits, lest it may prejudice the trial.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
21.01.2025
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
