Karan Yadav vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 3511 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Karan Yadav vs State Of Punjab on 21 March, 2025

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038956



CRM-M-14466-2025                                                      -1-



224


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                       CRM-M-14466-2025
                                       DECIDED ON: 21.03.2025

KARAN YADAV
                                                           .....PETITIONER

                                   VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                           .....RESPONDENT


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:   Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
           for the petitioner.

           Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG Punjab.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer

The jurisdiction of this Court U/s 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0190 Dated 04/10/2024 under

section 115(2), 333, 351(1), 351(3), 190, 191(3) OF BNS 2023 and Section

25,27 OF ARMS ACT 1959 Police Station Division No. 8 District- Police

Commissionerate Jalandhar.

2. Facts

Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

"Statement of Bindeshwari Parsad S/o Moti Lal resident of house no 183 Baba Balak Nath Nagar Bhagat Singh colony Jalandhar mobile no 98726-94300. Stated that I am resident of above said address and I am doing the shop of RS enterprises near Nehar

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038956

Pulli Gudaipur. I had engaged a worker namely Munish Kumar to sit outside my shop to sell mobile SIM cards. On dated 29/09/2024 my worker was selling the SIMs outside the shop. Time was near about 1:40 pm 3 boys on Activa were coming from Raja Garden River and people behind them were shouting "chor chor" (thief thief). Out of these 3 boys one boy named Suraj was identified by my worker Munish Kumar. Then after 20-25 minutes on my worker's phone number 82645-51849 whatsapp call was received from number 99880-88960 and threatened that you have identified us. If you tell anyone about this, you will be in difficulty. Then after my worker started working inside the shop. Time was about near 3:00 pm 2 boys armed with deadly weapons "khanda" and "Kirpan" entered in my shop. They took my worker on road outside the shop by threatening him by deadly weapons and I saw 3-4 other boys along with them and started attacking on my worker with the reverse side of their weapons "khanda"

and "kirpan". Due to this my worker suffered injuries. And one boy from them pointed pistol on my worker Munish Kumar. Then on seeing that people were gathered there all 5-6 boys ran away from the spot. Legal action be taken against these boys. Bindeshwari Parsad 98726-94300. SD/ Rajinder Singh SI police station division 8 Jalandhar dated 04/10/2024. "

3. Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that neither the

petitioner was named in the FIR nor Test Identification Parade of the

petitioner has been conducted. He asserts that there is a delay of five days in

lodging the FIR for which no explanation has come forth by the prosecution.

He has drawn attention of this Court to an order dated 26.11.2024 (Annexure

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038956

P-2) passed by the Court below vide which co-accused has already been

granted the concession of bail.

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

other cases.

4. Analysis

The custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e., 5 months and

11 days; there is a delay of five days in lodging the FIR and co-accused has

already been granted the concession of regular bail added with the fact that

investigation is complete, challan stands presented on 04.12.2024, charges are

yet to be framed thereafter total 12 prosecution witnesses are to be examinted,

meaning thereby conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, no useful

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

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038956

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 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

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038956

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."

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

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038956

evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or

apprehension of threat to the complainant.

As far as the contention of learned State counsel with regard to

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.

5. Relief:

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)
21.03.2025                                             JUDGE
Meenu

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


                                        6 of 6