Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sahil Kumar @ Shanga vs State Of Punjab on 6 March, 2025

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032131



CRM-M-8405-2025                                                         -1-




231
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CRM-M-8405-2025
                                         DECIDED ON: 06.03.2025

SAHIL KUMAR @ SHANGA
                                                             .....PETITIONER

                                     VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                             .....RESPONDENT


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:     Mr. Manbir Singh Basra, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG Punjab.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Relief Sought

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

invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 238, dated

12.12.2023, under Sections 307, 506, 336, 34 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25,

27, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police station Gate Hakima,

District Amritsar.

2. Facts

Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

"Statement of Gurmeet Singh son of Balbir Singh, resident of H. No. 23, Street No.1, Ghumiara Colony, Amritsar, aged 55 years, M. 7973216592. Stated that I am resident of above stated address and do private work. On 11.12.2023 at about 11 PM, I was present in my house with my family and was eating dinner. The

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032131

gate of the house was closed. Suddenly there was a gunshot heard in the street. On which, I and my son Manga Singh Cheeku went upstairs on the roof to see. We saw Rakshit Delhi, Ajay @ Peeri son of Sarwan Singh, resident of Unngarh, Amritsar armed with pistol, Sahil @ Shanga resident of Soap Street, Indira colony, Amritsar came on a motorcycle. They started abusing my son Manga Singh @ Cheeku and threatened him to come out of the house. Ajay Peeri fired from his pistol at my son Cheeku with an intention to kill him. We went down and took shelter of the parapet. They have created an atmosphere of fear in our colony by firing a shot. I raised raula mar- dita mar-dita and all the assailants left on their motorcycle alongwith their weapon. The motive of the occurrence is that my son Cheeku had a fight with Ajay @ Peeri. Due to this, they came to give injury to my son. Legal action may be taken against them. Statement got heard, it is correct. Sd/- Gurmeet Singh, attested by Shamsher Singh ASI, PS Gate Hakima, District Amritsar dated 12.12.2023."

3. Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the

petitioner was not in possession of any weapon and that no injuries have been

sustained in the incident. The counsel asserts that the co-accused persons also

did not cause any injuries but were merely present outside the house of the

complainant and fired gun-shot in the air.

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

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032131

other cases also. But he could not controvert the fact that its a case of no

injury.

4. Analysis

Be that as it may, considering the fact that admittedly no injury

whatsoever has been attributed to the petitioner; the petitioner has suffered

incarceration for a period of 1 year 1 month and 27 days, added with the fact

that after framing of charges on 27.09.2024, out of total 11 prosecution

witnesses none have been examined so far, which is sufficient for this Court to

infer that conclusion of trial shall take considerable time no useful purpose

would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for uncertain period,

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

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032131

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

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032131

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 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

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032131

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 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 pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would

lend the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032131

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.