Sajandeep Singh Alias Sajan vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 3716 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sajandeep Singh Alias Sajan vs State Of Punjab on 27 March, 2025

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

           CRM-M-15899-2025                             1



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

           228                                                 CRM-M-15899-2025
                                                               Date of decision: 27.03.2025


           Sajandeep Singh @ Sajan
                                                                                        ......Petitioner
                                                        Versus

           State of Punjab

                                                                                       .....Respondent
           CORAM:              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

           Present:            Mr. Sumit Dua, Advocate for the petitioner.

                               Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.

           SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

Relief Sought

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483

BNSS, 2023 seeking the concession of grant of regular bail for the petitioner in

FIR No.51 dated 10.07.2024 under Sections 308(5),351(3) of BNS 2023 (Section

61(2), 111,189(8)(9) of BNS and Sections 25,27,30 of Arms Act added later on)

registered at P.S Lohian, Jalandhar.

2. The Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version

narrated in the instant FIR reads as under :-

" Reference to the application by Lovepreet Singh son of Jasveer Singh, resident of Yusufpur Darewal, "To SHO Sahib, Police Station Lohian Special subject:- Regarding extortion and setting fire to the man gate of the house. Sir, I request that I Lovepreet Singh son of Jasveer Singh is a resident of Yusafpur Darewal District Jalandhar and doing agriculture. on 05-07-2024 In the morning, an unknown person asked me to pay ransom 50 lakh rupees through WhatsApp on phone number +447887129734 and

threatened to kill me with a bullet if I did not and then on night

07.07.2024 they fired on my gate and about this the said threatner called from another number +4473989648 on my phone number 99146-23142 and also sent message and call to me. On 09-07-24 I and my father are doing agriculture work and our fields are far back from the river and we are facing a lot of threats. Legal action should be taken against the person demand for 50 lacs Rs 99146- 23142 Action Police:- Today ASI including ASI Major Singh No 403/JAL-R. PHG Bhupinder Singh 28233 and PHG Satnam Singh 28114 were riding in a private vehicle and checking bad persons were present at T Point G.T Road Lohian that Mr. Lavepreet Singh along with his father Jasveer Singh son of Mr. Tara Singh resident of Yusafpur Chahwal Police Station Lohian District Jalandhar near me and submitted the application and signed the application in Punjabi letters. On the said compelling application, the offence under Section 308(5), 351(3) of BNS is found to be a crime ."

Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the present case and the petitioner was not even named

in the instant FIR. The name of the petitioner has only been nominated in the

disclosure statement of co-accused namely Satta and there is no material evidence

connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. No overt act is attributed to the

petitioner. Petitioner is behind bars for the last 07 months and 21 days and no

useful purpose would be served by keeping him in jail any longer as the

conclusion of trial would take long time.

On behalf of the State

4. On behalf of the State on the other hand, learned State Counsel

appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has

filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. Learned

State counsel opposed the grant of concession of bail on the ground that the

allegations qua the petitioner are that he fired shots at the house of the

complainant.

Analysis

5. Be that as it may, 18 prosecution witnesses have already been

examined and petitioner is behind bars for 07 months and 21 days, meaning

thereby the conclusion of trial will take a considerable time, this Court is of the

view that petitioner cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite period. ,

which is suffice for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial will take a

considerable amount of time for which the petitioner cannot be detained behind

the bars for an indefinite period. Further, 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2025.03.29 07:03 I attest to the accuracy and criminal jurisprudence or to our society. authenticity of this order

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 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 ReInhuman 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

2025.03.29 07:03 I attest to the accuracy and illusory."

authenticity of this order

6. 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 as 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

the 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 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 land the petitioner in a situation of denial of concession of bail.

Relief

7. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner

is hereby directed to be released on regular bail under 483 of BNSS, 2023 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.

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 ) JUDGE 27.03.2025 manoj

1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes /No

2. Whether reportable : Yes /No