Major Singh vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 646 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Major Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 January, 2025

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001731


CRM-M-33859-2024                                                     1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

225-2                          CRM-M-33859-2024 (O&M)
                           DATE OF DECISION: 09.01.2025

     MAJOR SINGH                                   ...PETITIONER

                                  Versus

     STATE OF PUNJAB                               ... RESPONDENT

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:      Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

              Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.

        ***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Relief Sought

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for

grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.131 dated 5.10.2023,

(Annexure P-1) under sections 380, 457, 148, 149, 411 IPC of 1860,

registered at P.S. Kartarpur District Jalandhar.

2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version

in the FIR reads as under :-

'Statement of Deepak Kumar son of Purshotam Lal, r/o H. No.3153, Baniya Mohalla, Kartarpur Jalandhar Rural aged 60 years. Mobile NO.98724-00857, 98724-00997. Stated that I am resident of above noted address and is having the showroom for the past 20 years Raur, Company distribute products at Baradari Bazaar, Kartarpur and of Post office L.G. and Oriental alongwith and this Oriental District I also Company Hoshiarpur, LG to Kapurthala, Nawanshahar, Jalandhar and for that I have made a godown in 2½ kanals land on Kishangarh road in between BajajHospital and Petrol pump Kartarpur where I supply the products of L.G. and oriental company to Kapurthala, Nawanshahar and Jalandhar and Hoshiarpur, I have kept migrant

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001731

labourers from U.P. in the godown. They last night at about 3.00 a.m. told me at my house at Bania Mohalla, Kartarpur that some unidentified persons with muffled faces tied us with the chairs and have stolen the articles from the godown. That we with great difficulty opened the door by pushing the same, I at once went to the godown then saw that the locks on the shutter and the locks on the gate were cut with a cutter, I checked the cameras of the godown and then I saw that about 1 a.m. some unidentified persons had scaled over the walls of the godown who were 8 to 10 numbers and then tied the immigrant labourers and then cut the locks with the cutters and took the articles form the godown and loaded them on a 10 tyres trolla which included the fridge of LGCompany, AC, LED and other articles worth lakhs which was stolen by those unidentified persons. I have been checking till now and the entire incident is captured in the cameras of the godown. I have recorded correct. Action same statement, my be taken. sd/- is Deepak Kumar above said Attested by Bodh Raj, P.S. Kartarpur, Dated 5.10.2023.

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. He submits that

as per the allegations all the accused persons came with muffled faces,

therefore, the identification of the petitioner is also debatable and the

present petitioner has been implicated merely on circumstantial evidence,

at the instance of the complainant. He further submits that investigation

in this case is compeleted as challan was presened on 09.12.2023,

charges framed on 14.06.2024 and out of total 17 cited witnesses by the

prosecution, none has been examined till date. It is his further submission

that recovery of the alleged stolen goods have already been effected,

therefore, no fruit ful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001731

behind the bars as no further recovery is to be made from the petitioner,

therefore, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

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 1 year, 2 months and

20 days.

Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating

Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that petitioner

is involved in one more FIR No.214 dated 10.11.2018 registered under

Sections 392/201 IPC at P.S. Malout City, meaning thereby he is an

habitual offender but is not in a position to controvert the submissions

made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Analysis

Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled

out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 1

year, 2 months and 20 days, no further recovery is to be made from the

petitioner 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 was presented on 09.12.2023,

charges framed on 14.06.2024 and out of total 17 cited witnesses by the

prosecution, none has been examined till date which is sufficient for this

Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable

time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an

indefinite period would solve no purpose.

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001731

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.

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001731

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.

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001731

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

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 pendency of other FIR is concerned, the

petitioner is on bail in that case and 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

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001731

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 pendency of other cases/convictions in all

probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the

concession of bail.

5. Decision:

In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the

petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail 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
09.01.2025
anuradha


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




                                   7 of 7