Ajay Rana vs State Of Haryana
2025 Latest Caselaw 747 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ajay Rana vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2025

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003503


CRM-M-65133-2024                                                     1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

227                          CRM-M-65133-2024
                             DATE OF DECISION: 13.01.2025

AJAY RANA
                                                               ...PETITIONER

                      VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA
                                                          ... RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present:       Mr. Balraj Singh Gujjar, Advocate for
               Mr. Shakti Singh, Advocate
               for the petitioner.

               Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

        ***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Relief Sought

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has

been invoked seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 89, dated

13.05.2024, under Sections 216, 307, 387, 506 and 34 IPC, 1860 and

Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station City Safidon,

District Jind.

2. Facts

Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

"TO , The SHO, Police station, City Safidon. Subject: -

Complaint against unknown people for demanding Extortion and on refusal of paying extortion, they fired upon my Partner namely Deepak, with intention to Kill at our shop. 1. That We have Mobile shop namely " 7VK Communication" at Stadium market and my Shop No are 17 & 18 and in this shop I, Ankur

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003503

Gupta Son of Ashok Gupta resident of Safidon presently residing in, Model Town, Virat Nagar Panipat, and I am partner with Deepak son of Rajender Prasad of Sadfion. 2. That I have received Whatsapp call Mobile Number 447309801064 on 30.3.2024 for extortion, on my Mobile No 9896244211, and I have taken this call lightly and no action was taken by me. But on next day i.e. 1.4.2024, I received the WhatsApp call from same mobile number and I blocked that number. That again on

3.4.2024, third time, I have received call from Mobile no. 37256187485, and again they demanded the extortion and they threatened me to face the dire and also threatened to kill us and even again we had this call. 3. That today i.e. 13.5.2024 around 5.35 PM, Deepak was standing outside and I was working inside the shop and then, I saw three unknown people coming on motorcycle with muffled faces and those people fired towards the Shop and Deepak escaped from the firing. Then firing, those unknown persons escaped towards new Bus Stand while waving their pistols in air. I have full Doubt that this attack was done by same persons who used to give threat from above mentioned Mobile numbers for Extortion on my mobile phone. That immediately after the incident I have informed the Police and police also came on the spot. Thus, it is humbly prayed before you Sir, that strict legal may kindly be taken against the unknown people and protect our life and property Sd/- Applicant Ankur Gupta son of Ashok Gupta, resident of Safidon presently residing in Model Town Virat Nagar, Panipat."

3. Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement

suffered by co-accused. He further submits that it is a case of no injury

and no weapon has been recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003503

other co-accused of the petitioner have been granted the concession of

bail either by trial Court or by this Court.

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 on the ground that the petitioner has played an active

role in connivance with other co-accused and calls were being made

for extortion from abroad.

Though the parity with the co-accused has been disputed by

learned State counsel stating that the petitioner was driving the

motorcycle whereas, the other co-accused were found at the spot.

4. Analysis

Be that as it may, considering the fact that it is a case of no

injury and no incriminating material is coming forward except that the

petitioner was found with the allegation of driving the motorcycle on

which the main accused came and fired added with the fact that the

petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of 7 months and 24

days, as of now, who is not involved in any other case, as is evident

from the custody certificate, meaning thereby, he is not a habitual

offender and the investigation is complete wherein challan stands

presented on 15.07.2024, charges has not yet been framed and out of

total 16 prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far, meaning

thereby conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, no useful

purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for

an indefinite period, which would curtail right of the petitioner for

speedy trial and expeditious disposal, as enshrined under Article 21 of

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003503

the 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

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003503

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,

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003503

(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 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:

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003503

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)
                                              JUDGE
13.01.2025
sham



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




                                 7 of 7