Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankish vs State Of Haryana on 19 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037716
CRM-M-13736-2025 - 1-
245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13736-2025
DECIDED ON: 19.03.2025
ANKISH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate
Mr. Tejas Bansal, Advocate and
Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Pannu, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Sanpreet Sandhu, Advocate
for the complainant.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
This petition has been filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of Regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 274,
dated 23.12.2024, under Section 25 Arms Act and Sections 109(1), 115, 190, 191 (3)
and 351(3) of BNS, registered at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Facts
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.12.2024,
a message was received with regard to admission of Rohan S/o Jagan, R/o Sunder
Vihar Colony, P.S. Farakpur, in Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, with a fire arm
injury. On the basis of this information, SI/SHO alongwith
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037716
CRM-M-13736-2025 - 2-
P/SI Randeep Singh, HC Sandeep Kumar, HC Anil Kumar and other police
officials reached at the Hospital. There the doctor opined the patient unfit to make
the statement. Thereafter, SI/SHO after taking one Satya S/o Ram Sewak present
there visited the place of occurrence and inspected the same. On 23.12.2024, he
recorded the statement of Rohan, who stated that he was resident of H. No. 64,
Sunder Vihar Colony, Yamuna Nagar. His elder brother Rohit was working in a
Cafe. He had friendship with Sagar for the last 6/7 years. One Dev Sexena used to
sent message to the daughter of Bua of one Arjun and because of this, a
confrontation was going on between Arjun, Sunny with one Dev Sexena. A quarrel
also took place between them on 21.12.2024 in this regard. On 22.12.2024, when
he alongwith his friends Ravi, Yash, Sagar, Vishesh, Sumit, Amit @ Roshan,
Abhay and Rohit was present at the house of Rakesh for celebrating the birth day
party, there a phone came to Sagar from Dev Sexena. On receiving this phone,
Sagar and Sumit went to meet Dev, to have a talk with Sunny, Arjun and their
friends with regard to their pending dispute, Thereafter, the complainant received a
call of Sumit, who asked him to take him from Sasoli Village, He brought Sumit
and Sagar on the motor cycle belonging to Ritesh. After some time, Sagar, Sumit
called their friends Ravi and Vishesh alongwith other friends. They
all went to Sasoli to have a fight with Sunny and his friends. He alongwith his
friend Vishesh also went there and found that a fight was taking place between
Dev Sexena, Sumit, Sagar, Sunny, Arjun and their friends. They were throwing
bricks and stones on each other and were abusing each
other. They were also extending threats to kill each other. On seeing the fight
getting momentum, they tried to skip from there. In between, some one fired a
bullet and the same hit him on his left thigh. On the basis of this complaint, formal
FIR under Sections 109(1), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 351(3) and of BNS and section 25
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037716
CRM-M-13736-2025 - 3-
of Arms Act, 1959 was registered. The place of occurrence was inspected by the
Scene of Crime Team. Statements of witnesses were recorded. During
investigation, Sagar, Sumit, Dev Sexena, Mandeep and Lovepreet @ P.K. were
produced by their guardians. Sagar, Dev Sexena, Mandeep Singh and Lovepreet
Singh @ P.K. were found juvenile. The place of occurrence was got demarcated
on basis of their confessional statements. CCTV footage of the area was got
obtained. In their confessional statement, accused Arun and Sagar (child-in-
conflict with law), disclosed that a country made Pistol was in possession of
accused Ankish and it was he, who used that fire arm and had fired gun shots to
kill Arjun and Sunny. Present accused Ankish was arrested in the present case on
22.01.2025 and his confessional statement was recorded.
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and
the complainant are first cousins and a compromise stands effected between the
parties. The said facts has not been disputed by the counsel appearing for the
complainant.
On behalf of the respondent-State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice,
has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According
to which, the petitioner is behind bars for the last 1 month and 26 days.
4. Analysis
Considering the fact that a compromise has been effected between the
parties otherwise also petitioner is not involved in any other case of any nature
whatsoever, meaning thereby, he is not habitual offender, this Court is of the view
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037716
CRM-M-13736-2025 - 4-
that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
Moreover, investigation is completed and challan stands presented on 21.02.2025.
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. Similarly, it
is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the
investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037716
CRM-M-13736-2025 - 5-
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. 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037716
CRM-M-13736-2025 - 6-
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.
5. Decision:
In view of the 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/Chief Judicial Magistrate/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)
19.03.2025 JUDGE
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
