Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037751
CRM-M-13668-2025 - 1-
244 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13668-2025
DECIDED ON: 19.03.2025
AVTAR SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Narinder Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
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. 13,
dated 31.01.2024, under Sections 379-B (2), 411/34 IPC, registered at Police Station
Sadar Taran Taran, District Taran Taran. .
2. Facts
Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR
reads as under :-
Copy of statement of Amrik Singh son of Kehar Singh, aged about 55
years resident of village Norangabad. That I am running a
Meat/Chicken Shop at Norangabad, today at about 1 Pm I was sitting
at my shop with my son Bikramjit Singh that two Youngman coming
on the slender Motor cycle PB 63-B 6279, they armed with DATAR,
and one put the datar on my neck and took out my wallet
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037751
CRM-M-13668-2025 - 2-
from my shirt. And they tried to flee away on the motor cycle, but
their motor cycle slipped and they both fell down on the road. We both
raised alarm, in the meantime Mohan Lala came at the spot, and we
apprehended them at the spot. Police reached on the spot, statements
recorded, which is correct, Sd Amrik Singh"
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. The petitioner is the only bread earner of his
family. Moreover, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of 1 year, 1
month and 17 days as of now and is a person of clean antecedents.
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 year, 1 month and 17 days. He
prays for dismissal of the present petition stating that the name of the petitioner was
specifically mentioned in the FIR and arrested on the spot.
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. one year, one month and 17
days and a person of clean antecedents 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 after framing of charges on 01.05.2024
out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, only 5 PWs have been examined so far 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.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037751
CRM-M-13668-2025 - 3-
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
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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037751
CRM-M-13668-2025 - 4-
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
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."
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037751
CRM-M-13668-2025 - 5-
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
5 of 5
