Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar Patil Alias Ranjeet vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059382
CRM-M-23260-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
231
CRM-M-23260-2025
DATE OF DECISION: 06.05.2025
RAJESH KUMAR PATIL ALIAS RANJEET
...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. G.S.Sethi, Advocate with
Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Rajiv Verma, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for grant of Regular
Bail to the Petitioner in FIR No. 14 dated 25.01.2025 (Annexure P-1)
registered at Police Station Sadar, District Ludhiana for offences
punishable under sections 109, 125, 324, 351 of BNS, 2023 to which
section 326 (F) & 326 (G) of BNS, 2023 has been added later on.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
'Statement of Amit Kumar son of Late Ishwardeen Verma,
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059382
resident of House No. 331, near Post Office, village Tharike,
Ludhiana, aged about 33 years, M.No.97814-43334. Stated that I
am a resident of the aforementioned address and I do the work of
sale purchase of CCTV camera and computer at Pakhowal Road
Ludhiana in the name of AMIT Security Solutions. On 25.01.2025
at around 4:00 AM, my 6 days old son was crying. When we were
roaming around in the lobby to pacify him, we saw on our LCD
that there was a fire near the main gate of my house. When we saw
our cameras, then at about 04:15 AM, a person named Rajish
Kumar Patel alias Ranjit Patel, who resides in our street, who held
a plastic bucket containing a flammable liquid such as petrol or
diesel. That Rajish Kumar Patel was seen throwing the liquid
contained in the bucket towards my gate and since there was a hole
in the gate, the liquid substance was spurted over vehicle parked
inside the house i.e. white coloured TVS IQ-9 Electric Scooter
bearing registration No.PB10-JR 1934 make, one whit registration
coloured No. Activa PB10-HX-3874, bearing gray coloured Royal
Enfield motorcycle bearing registration No. PB10-GY-3878, gray
coloured Activa bearing registration No. PB10-HB-2445, one
silver coloured Splendor Motorcycle bearing registration No.
PB10-FG-4623 and a black coloured 22 inch Hero bicycle,
whereupon, the said Rajish Kumar Patel took out a matchbox from
his pocket and put them ablaze, due to which, the door of the house
and the said vehicles and all the belongings lying in the porch also
caught fire. When the property and vehicles of our house were
burning, Rajish Kumar Patel alias Ranjit Patel with a sword in his
hand was standing in the chowk while hurling abuses loudly and
was saying that none of their family members shall be spared
today. Had we not known about the fire and there was no back
door of our house, we could not run out of the house and would
have died inside the house itself. He set our house on fire with the
intention of killing our entire family. The cause of dispute is that
Rajish Kumar Patel alias Ranjit Patel used to drive his vehicle
bearing registration No. PB10-AM-150535 make SX-4 at high
speed through the street at night with loud noise. Whom we and
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059382
other residents restrained from doing So, who then threatened me
that if you stop me again, I will kill you and your family. Today he
has fulfilled his assurance with the intention of killing. I request
you that the said Rajish Kumar has damaged my house by setting
fire to me and my family with the intention of killing. Appropriate
legal action should be taken against him. I have recorded my
statement with you, heard it, admit the same to be correct. Amit
Kumar. Verified by ASI Saraj Kumar 450 Police Station Sadar
Ludhiana. Dated 25.01.2025. Police Proceedings: Today I ASI
alongwith ASI Rajinder Pal No. 2511/Ldh, Constable Husandeep
Singh No. 1278/Ldh, PHG Kulwant Singh 21013 riding in a
private vehicle was present near Tharike Chowk, Ludhiana in
connection with checking of suspicious persons and suspicious
vehicles, then Amit Kumar son of Late Ishwardeen Verma, resident
of House No. 331, near Post Office, villageTharike, Ludhiana
approached myself ASI and recorded his aforementioned statement,
whose statement was recorded and read over, who after hearing
and admitting the same to be correct, appended his signatures in
English below his statement. Statement was verified by myself ASI.
That from the transcript of the statement, offence under Section
109, 125, 324, 351 BBS 2023 is made out. That the statement is
forwarded to the police station by hand of PHG Kulwant Singh
21013 for registration of case against Rajish Kumar Patel alias
Ranjit under the given offence. After registration of case, the
original statement alongwith copy of FIR be forwarded to the
place of incident. information be transmitted to the control room. I
ASI alongwith fellow officials as well as the complainant proceed
towards the place of occurrence. Today at Tharike Chowk,
Ludhiana at 2:30 PM dated 25.01.2025. On the receipt of the
aforementioned statement in the police station today, case has been
registered against Rajish Kumar Patel alias Ranjit under the given
offence. Control room has been notified. Original statement
alongwith copy of FIR is being referred to the ASI at the place of
incident for investigation proceedings by hand of PHG. Rapat No.
16 at 15:14 PM dated 25.01.2025.'
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059382
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. He submits that
there is no allegation of any bodily injury and physical harm caused to the
complainant and his family members. He further submits that nothing is
to be recovered from the present petitioner, moreso, the investigation in
the case is complete as challan stands presented on 28.03.2025 charges
are yet to be framed and there are total 12 prosecution witnesses are
cited which are yet to be examined which is sufficient to infer that the
conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, therefore, prays for grant
of regular bail to the petitioner.
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 on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the
petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in another FIR, moreso,
and there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner that he
tried to put on fire the house of the complainant by pouring kerosene oil.
4. Analysis
From the above discussion, it can be culled out that the
petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 3 months and 9
day, nothing is to be recovered from the present petitioner, it is a case of
no injury and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one
should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059382
doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands presented on 28.03.2025
charges are yet to be framed and 12 prosecution witnesses are yet to be
examined which is sufficient 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.
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.
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059382
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 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
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059382
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 "Balwinder
Singh versus State of Punjab and Another", SLP (Crl.)
No.8523/2024. Relevant paras of the said judgment reads as under:-
"7. An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a
hurried
trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to
prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion
of the trial would infringe the right of an accused
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
8. It is not for nothing the Author Oscar Wilde in "The
Ballad of Reading Gaol", wrote the following poignant
lines while being incarcerated:
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059382
"I know not whether Laws be right,
Or whether Laws be wrong;
All that we know who be in jail
Is that the wall is strong;
And that each day is like a year,
A year whose days are long."
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 the
concession of bail.
5. Relief
In view of the aforesaid 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/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:059382
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)
JUDGE
06.05.2025
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
