Punjab-Haryana High Court
Razia Begum Alias Rajia Begam vs State Of Punjab on 13 January, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003575
CRM-M-65188-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
229 CRM-M-65188-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 13.01.2025
RAZIA BEGUM @ RAJIA BEGAM
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Edward Augustine George Masih, Advocate for
Mr. J.S. Mehdiratta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS,
2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Case FIR No. 57,
dated 12.06.2022, under Section 364 IPC registered at Police Station
Urban Estate, Patiala. However, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
stands presented under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC, 1860.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the
version in the FIR reads as under :-
At this time, it is recorded that one written statement of
Baldev Singh son of Fakiria Singh, resident of Balbir Colony,
Chauran, P.S. Urban, Patiala aged about 66 years, Mobile
No. 85560-02975, written by SI Gurmit Singh 2374 is
received at P.S. Urban Estate, Patiala for registration of FIR
against unknown persons under sections 364 IPC by hand
through Ct. Mandeep Singh 1923, the contents of which are
as follows - Statement of Baldev Singh son of Fakiria Singh
resident of Balbir Colony, Chauran, P.S. Urban Estate,
Patiala, District Patiala aged about 66 years, mobile No.
85560-0297. Stated that I am resident of above-mentioned
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003575
address and I have retired from the Department of Food and
Supplies. I have two sons, both of them are married. My elder
son Feroze Khan is staying separate from me, while my
younger son Kasim Mohd. @ Lovely aged about 30 years is
staying with me alongwith his family. My son Kasim Mohd. @
Lovely used to tell us that he is serving in an agency of Ford
Cars in Delhi. He used to visit home every month and used to
return back on Monday morning. Yesterday on 11.06.2022,
my son Kasim Mohd @ Lovely came home at 4:00 pm and
around 7:30 pm, he went out to attend a party being hosted
by his friend, in his car bearing No. CH01-AA-9078, mark
Alto, but he did not return home in the night and his mobile
phone was also found switched off. Today morning I made a
phone call to my elder son Feroze Khan and started
searching for my son Kasim Mohd. @ Lovely. His car was
found standing on byepass road near Tikoni Market, Opposite
Phase-2, Urban Estate, Patiala Road. We checked the same
thoroughly and it was found locked on the back seat behind
the driver, there was blood stains. When we peeped inside
the car through glasses, there was lot of blood on back seat
of car. Thereafter, we searched for our son a lot but could not
get any clue about him. That condition of car reflects that my
son Kasim Mohd @ Lovely might have been murdered by
some unknown person(s) or he has been kidnapped and kept
at a secret place with an intention to kill him. I alongwith my
son Feroze Khan was coming to inform you at Police Station
Urban Estate, Patiala, when you met us on the way near
Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Phase-2, Urban Estate, Patiala. I
have got recorded my statement before you in front of my son
Feroze Khan. Statement read, heard and it is correct. My son
be searched and necessary legal action may be taken against
unknown person(s). sd/-Baldev Singh, Verified by Feroze
Khan above named. Attested by SI Gurmeet Singh, P.S.
Urban Estate, Patiala, dated 12.06.2022. Police Proceedings
- Today I SI alongwith ASI Jaswinder Singh 2517, ASI
Gurvinder Singh 583, HC Malkit Singh 522 and Ct. Mandeep
Singh 1923 were patrolling in the area on a government
vehicle bearing No. PB-11CF-3803 being driven by ASI
Kuldeep Singh 979 alongwith laptop and printer, when Baldev
Singh son of Fakiria Singh resident of Balbir Colony, Chauran
alongwith his son Feroze Khan met us and got recorded his
aforesaid statement before me. Which was recorded as per
his dictates and after admitting the same as correct he
appended his signatures in Punjabi. The statement was
further verified by his son Feroze Khan and then attested by
me the SI. From the contents of the statement so recorded,
offence punishable under section 364 IPC is found to have
been committed. As such, after recording the statement, the
same is being sent to the Police Station for registration of FIR
against unknown persons by hand through Ct. Mandeep
Singh 1923. After registration of FIR, its number be informed.
Special reports be issued. Control room Patiala be informed
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003575
on W/M. I SI alongwith my colleagues and the complainant,
heading for conducting search of his son Kasim Mohd. In the
area of Near Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Urban Estate, Phase-
2, Patiala. Time 4:20 pm. Today on receipt of above said
statement, above-mentioned FIR has been registered against
unknown persons and record completed through MHC. Copy
of FIR is being sent to Illaqa Magistrate and Senior officers as
special reports by hand through ASI Balwinder Singh 2070.
Control Room, Patiala has been informed through e-mail.
Copy of FIR alongwith original statement being sent to SI
Gurmeet Singh by hand through Ct. Mandeep Singh."
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of
disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused namely Sukhdeep
Singh. It is asserted that as far as presence of any medication for
sedation is concerned, as per report dated 13.06.2023 (Annexure P-4),
no definitive opinion could be given whether medication for sedation
was given or not. Moreover, the complainant-Baldev Singh has not
supported the prosecution's version and was declared hostile.
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 has suffered incarceration for a
period of 2 years, 6 months and 28 days, as of now and is not involved
in any other case of any nature whatsoever.
Learned State Counsel has prayed for dismissal of the
present petition stating that serious allegations have been levelled
against the petitioner. However, he is not in a position to controvert
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003575
the fact that the complainant has turned hostile. He informs the Court
that in the present FIR challan stands presented on 05.09.2022,
wherein, the prosecution has cited total 31 witnesses, out of which 9
have been examined so far, after framing of charges on 09.12.2022.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the fact that the complainant
has turned hostile and there is no definitive opinion with regard to
administer of medication for sedation added with the fact that the
petitioner is a person of clean antecedents and after framing of charges
on 09.12.2022, out of total 31 prosecution witnesses only 9 have been
examined, meaning thereby, the conclusion of trial shall take
considerable time and as per the principle of the criminal
jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is
proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, detaining the petitioners
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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003575
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
436-A 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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003575
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 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.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003575
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
13.01.2025
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
