Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harman Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 January, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010792
CRM-M-3219-2025 -1-
219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-3219-2025
DECIDED ON: 24.01.2025
HARMAN SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, has been
invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 76, dated
05.07.2024, under Sections 341, 324, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 (Sections 326 of IPC
(118(2) of BNS and Section 201 of IPC (238 of BNS) added later on registered at
Police Station Majitha, Amritsar.
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
“Statement of Kanwaljit Singh son of Gursewak Singh resident of
village Ludhar, P.S. Majitha, District Amritsar age 25 years mobile
No. 86694-03415 states that I am resident of above said address. I
was doing the work of welding. On 22.06.2024 at 10.30 AM I was1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 19:38:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010792CRM-M-3219-2025 -2-
coming back home after doing the work of Satnam Singh @ Sattu of
our village when I reached near the water tank of village Ludhar then
there Harman son of Laddu armed with datar, Goni son of Laddu
armed with datar, Vishal Sharma armed with Kirpan, Jodha son of
Flancha armed with datar and Laddu son of Balwant Singh armed
with datar all residents of village Ludhar, P.S. Majitha were already
standing with their weapons. When I reached near than all the above
said persons surrounded me and Harman gave a lalkara to catch
hold. Today I should not go unhurt teach him (me) a lesson for
quarreling with us on which all of them attacked with their respective
weapons upon me. Goni above said gave blow of datar with intention
to kill me on my head I raised both my hands on my head, so the datar
hit on my left wrist. Harman above said gave a blow of his datar with
intention to kill me on my head and I raised my hands above my head
and the datar hit on the little finger of the right hand. Jodha Singh
above said gave two blows of datar on my right leg and blow the
knee. Vishal Singh above said gave a blow of Kirpan twice on my
right knee, Laddu above said gave a blow of his datar on the left
knee, Vishal gave the blow of the dasti Kirpan below my left knee,
Harman gave a blow of his datar on my right foot on the upper part.
Harman gave the blow of datar below the right knee. Jodha gave two
blows continuously on below my right knee. Goni gave the blow of the
datar on the back side of my right hand. I raised rola of Mar Ditta
Mar Ditta then on hearing my rola Teja Singh son of Narender Singh
and Maggu son of Major Singh resident of Ludhar came on the spot
on seeing them, all the persons fled with their respective weapons.
The motive is that all the above said persons had earlier also quarrel
with me regarding which I had given an application at Majitha Police
Station. Regarding which the respectables had got the matter
compromise with respect to the above said grudge all the above said
persons has given me injuries with intention to kill me. Action be
taken against them. The respectables have been trying for effecting a
compromise between us it could not materialized. I have recorded my
statement. Heard it. It is correct Sd/ – Kanwaljit Singh.”
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 19:38:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010792
CRM-M-3219-2025 -3-
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case and there is unexplained delay of 12 days in
lodging the FIR, as the incident took place on 22.06.2024 and the FIR was got
registered on 05.07.2024. He further submits that all the injuries are on non-vital
part of the body out of which 2 injuries have been declared grievous in nature.
On behalf of the State/complainant
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the
petitioner, which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present on the
ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in another case.
4. Analysis
Considering the custody period already suffered by the petitioner i.e.,
of 5 months and 14 days and the investigation is complete, challan stands
presented on 16.10.2024 and charges are yet to be framed and total 19 witnesses
have been cited by the prosecution for examination, meaning thereby conclusion
of trial shall take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping
the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, which would curtail right of
the petitioner for speedy trial and expeditious disposal, as enshrined under Article
21 of the 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 been3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 19:38:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010792CRM-M-3219-2025 -4-
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.
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 also4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 19:38:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010792CRM-M-3219-2025 -5-
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 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.
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 19:38:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010792CRM-M-3219-2025 -6-
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.
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
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 19:38:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010792
CRM-M-3219-2025 -7-
cases/convictions in all probability would lend the petitioner in a situation of
denial the concession of bail.
5. DECISION:
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)
24.01.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 25-01-2025 19:38:13 :::