Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh @ Bindu vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039499
CRM-M-63119-2024 -1-
217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-63119-2024
DECIDED ON: 24.03.2025
BALWINDER SINGH @ BINDU
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG Punjab
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
This is 2nd Petition under section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the Petitioner in FIR
No. 0222 dated 05/11/2023 under section 304, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860,
registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka District Fazilka (Annexure P-5) as
no role has been ascribed to the present Petitioner and the prosecution has
been projecting wrong details of the injuries suffered by the deceased Gurbaj
Singh which is evident from the initial medical report pertaining to Ares
Hospital, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan) (Annexure P-3).
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039499
"Statement of Gurbakhshish Singh son of Kulwant Singh son of
Deewan Singh, resident of Village Lakhe Ke Uttar, aged about 28
years, mobile No. 79864-55052, stated that I am resident of the
above said address and doing the agriculture work. We are three
brothers. Younger to me Gurbaj Singh and younger to him Angrej
Singh. That on 25.10.2023 I was present at my home, then the son
of my Taya/uncle Aasha Singh namely Rajwinder Singh, who is
living at Fazilka and is serving at Department of Agriculture of
SBI. That because he got late therefore he came to my house. That
my brother Gurbaj Singh who is working as lifting kuttal/mustard
straw, that inspite of being very late in the night, my brother
Gurbaj Singh did not come back home, therefore, I told my cousin
brother Rajwinder Singh that Gurbaj Singh has not come back yet
as he had gone to Mandi Ladhuka, who further told me to lets go
to Mandi and we will come back together alongwith Gurbaj.
When we both on our motorcycle were going to Mandi Ladhuka
from our village, then time around 9-30 PM, we crossed Inderjit
Sandhu Petrol Pump. Balwinder Singh @ Bindu S/O Kartar
Singh resident of Lakhe Ke Uttar of our village called me and
told me that your brother Gurbaj Singh fell down who was Ankur
Randhawa coming to the village from the market. When I and my
uncle's son reached saw mill near Ferozepur road, we saw that
Lala son of unknown resident of Village Nooran, Kali Ghubaya
son of unknown resident of Ghubaya, Rajdeep alias Raj Singh son
of Sona Singh resident of Hire Wala were giving betting to my
brother Gurbaj Singh, when we saw our brother Gurbaj Singh,
then we raised a clamour 'Maar Ditta- Maar Ditta', then these
three shouted that there has been an accident, after saying that,
they went away. We arranged a vehicle and took our brother
Gurbaj Singh, who had suffered head injuries and the blood was
oozing out to Civil Hospital Fazilka for treatment, where my
brother was referred to Faridkot Hospital due to injuries on his
head and his critical condition, therefore, we admitted my brother
Gurbaj Singh at nearby place Shri Ganganagar in Aarish
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039499
Hospital for his treatment on 4-11-2023, during the treatment, my
brother Gurbaj Singh died. A few days earlier, there arose a
dispute with regard to mustard straw between my brother Gurbaj
Singh and Kaali Ghubaya, Lala Nooran, Raj Singh @ Raju Heere
Wala and Balwinder Singh alias Bindu residents of Lakhe Ke
Uttar, due to the said grudge, Kaali Ghubaya, Lala Nooran,
Rajdeep Singh @ Raj Singh @ Raju Heere Wala and Balwinder
Singh alias Bindu residents of Lakhe Ke Uttar in connivance with
each other gave beating to my brother, due to the said injuries My
brother Gurbaj Singh has died. Therefore, appropriate legal
action will be taken against the said persons and justice be given
to us. I have written a statement and read and is correct. Sd/-
Gurbaj 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 and there is a delay of ten days in
lodging the FIR for which no explanation has come forth by the prosecution. He
submits that on account of an accident Gurbaj Singh (since deceased), petitioner
as well as co-accused received injuries. He asserts that the unfortunate incident
occurred due to the aforesaid accident, which is neither intentional nor having the
knowledge as the sans of intent is totally absent and therefore, it would be unjust
to detain the petitioner behind the bars.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has filed the custody
certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He could not controvert the
fact of accident and no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. Though
he prays for dismissal of the present petition stating that the petitioner is a
habitual offender, as he is involved in other cases.
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039499
4. Analysis
Considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e., 1
year and 7 days and no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner
added with the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands presented on
13.05.2024, charges are yet to be framed thereafter total 15 prosecution witnesses
are to be examined. This Court is sanguine of the fact 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
and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer
periods. This does not do any good to our criminal
jurisprudence or to our society.
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039499
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 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039499
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."
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039499
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 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.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039499
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)
24.03.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
