Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdeep Singh Alias Jaggu vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037697
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221 CRM-M-60456-2024
Date of Decision : March 19, 2025
JAGDEEP SINGH ALIAS JAGGU
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present : Mr. Vishanjeet Singh Rishi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S.Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (Oral)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.75,
dated 19.8.2024, under Section 105 of the BNS, 2023, registered at Police
Station Maloud, District Ludhiana(Punjab).
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
"Statement of Shah Mohammad Ali son of Shamshad Ali resident of
Village Somal Kheri, Police Station Maloud, District Ludhiana aged
about 40 years (98551-57000) Stated that I am a resident of the
above said address, I am doing work as driver for last 25 years. My
friend Mohit Goel Alias Charlie son of Parveen Goel is a resident of
Ward No.6, whose parents resides in Foreign Country at Canada.
His younger brother resides at Delhi. Mohit Goel Alias Charlie aged
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037697
about 35 years resides alone at his home, who usually used to meet
me. who sometime ago due to bad company had became habitual of
taking intoxicants, to whom I used to stop but he never listened to
me. regarding whom I informed his mother/father and brother that
Mohit Goel Alias Charlie has started taking intoxicants. Then I
asked them to make him understand that he should not take
intoxicants. About 5-6 months ago Mohit Goel Alias Charlie's
brother took him to Delhi who by residing 5-6 months at Delhi came
to his house about 1 month ago. Who after coming to home again
started consuming intoxicants. About 20 days ago Mohit Goel Alias
Charlie started saying to me that we have to go to Village Dhamot
Kalan for some work, then I went along with Charlie in his car at
Village Dhamot Kalan in someone's house where one person after
handing over the envelope to Mohit Goel Alias Charlie took
Rs.5000/- from him. Then I asked my friend Charlie that this is not
good thing and said to the person named Jagdeep Singh Alias Jaggu
who gave intoxicant that you are doing very wrong work. The
intoxicant powder which you have given can cause his death. Please
you don't give intoxicant to my friend but Jaggu named person
ignored my talks and who kept on giving intoxicant powder to my
friend. Inspite of my saying again and again that due to high/low
dose of this intoxicant his death can occur. You please don't give him
intoxicant powder. Today I have come to know that my friend Mohit
Goel Alias Charlie has died due to high dose of Intoxicant powder.
This death has occurred due to above said Jagdeep Singh Alias
Jaggu, inspite of my asking again and again that with this intoxicant
death can occur, he has given knowingly, without any care this white
(intoxicant) to my friend Mohit Goel Alias Charlie. Due to this his
death has occured. Jagdeep Singh Alias Jaggu is responsible for his
death. Against whom appropriate legal action be taken. The
statement has been recorded with you. Heard it. It is correct. Sd/-
Shah. M. Ali (Shah Mohammad Ali) 98551-57000. Attested Sd/-
Avtar Singh ASI, Police Station Maloud, Dated 19-08-2024. Police
Proceedings:- Today I ASI along with HC Amarjit Singh,
674/Khanna was present at Police Station then above said Shah
Mohammad Ali came present to me, who by coming present to me
got recorded his above said statement. Whose statement after
writing was read over to him. Who after reading and admitting his
statement to be correct signed under his statement in English which
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037697
I Attested. From the statement offence under section 105 BNS is
found to be made out. Upon which I ASI after handing over the ruka
for registration of case to MHC Harjinder Singh 492/K. After
registering the case number be intimated. DCR Khanna be informed.
Special reports be issued. I ASI along with companions is moving to
the spot. Sd/- Avtar Singh ASI. Police Station Maloud. Dated
19.08.2024. Jurisdiction:- Police Station Maloud at 5.50PM. Today
upon duly receiving the above said statement. Case under above said
offences against above said accused was registered. Original
statement along with copy of FIR is sent to the Investigating Officer
at the spot through Sepoy Mani Singh 558/Khanna. Special reports
are being sent to the Illaqa Magistrate and Senior Officers through
LCT Arshdeep Kaur 749/Khanna. DCR Khanna and Senior Officers
were informed."
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do
with the alleged offence and there is no evidence till date to connect the
petitioner with the alleged offence except the allegations contained in the FIR.
He would further submits that the deceased is stated to have bought the
intoxicant 20 days ago from the petitioner and there are no allegations that the
deceased had bought the intoxicant and immediately died and no recovery has
been effected from the petitioner.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record.
He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that a young person
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037697
aged 35 years has died on account of the drugs being supplied by the
petitioner.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 6 months
and 24 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration and in addition
to the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands presented to Court on
16.10.2024, charges have been framed on 17.4.2024 and total 10 prosecution
witnesses are cited and none of them have been examined so far, which is
suffice for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial will take long time
for which the petitioner cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite
period.
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
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037697
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
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037697
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.
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037697
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. RELIEF:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on him 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.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037697
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)
March 19, 2025 JUDGE
ajay-1
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
8 of 8
