Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prabhjot Singh Alias Anshu vs State Of Punjab on 25 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140696
CRM-M-52206-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
213 CRM-M-52206-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 25.10.2024
PRABHJOT SINGH ALIAS ANSHU
...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr.S.S. Pannu, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Case FIR No. 69 Dated
02.03.2023 registered with Police Station City Kharar under Sections 302,
364, 201, 406, 420, 120-B IPC District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
‘Statement of Gagan Kumar Son of Paramjit Singh Resident
of House No.-2213/55 C New Vijay Nagar Street No-3 Tajpur
Road, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana aged about 26 years, stated
that I am a resident of the aforesaid address and working in a
private job at Ludhiana. My brother-in-law Rajinder Singh son of
Hardev Singh Village Post Office Mahauli Khurd Police Station
Sandour District Malerkotla (aged about 33-34 years) who used to
work for car sales and exchange at Kharar who lived on rent at Sri
Krishna Dairy Sante Majra Colony Kharar near Swaraj Nagar
that on dated 18-2-2023 my brother-in-law came back from1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 05:33:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140696CRM-M-52206-2024
2Gurgaon Haryana. With whom I spoke on the phone, who told me
that I will come to Ludhiana on Monday.
After that, from Sunday, my brother-in-law Rajinder Singh was
nowhere to be found. whose mobile phone was also switched off.
We kept looking for him on our own and on 23-2-2023 1 also gave
a missing report at the police station City Kharar. Then I came to
know that my brother-in-law Rajinder Singh’s bank account in
HDFC, SBI has withdrawn about 2.5 lakh rupees from various
places through ATM. That’s why I applied at SBI Bank Branch
Sandaur District Malerkotla for his account number-
50100397745235. The statement was also obtained. From which it
was found that on dated 24-2-2023, 5 thousand rupees of my
brother-in-law Rajinder Singh through UPI PHONE NO – 77480-
96921 has been transferred to the as last transaction from the
account number-4694248162090. Then we checked on our own
and found that it is in the name of Prabh alias Prabhjot Singh in
account number- 4694248162090 from mobile number-77430-
96921. Then alongwith Sukhveer Singh on your asking came to the
police station Mor Kharar, then you showed me the notice of
discovery of the dead body of an unknown person by police station
Bassi Pathana and on seeing that notice of the dead body came to
know that this picture belongs to my brother-in- law Rajinder
Singh. Before this my brother-in-law Rajinder Singh through his
acquaintance Hira Singh alias Deep son of Bhupinder Singh
resident of Street No-2 Guru Nanak Colony near Udham Singh
Chak Village Sangaria District Hanumangarh Rajasthan and other
acquaintances Amandeep Singh alias Boban Son of Balwant Singh
resident of villageHamirgarh Dhapai District Mansa, Prabhjot
Singh alias Anshu son of Nirlep Singh resident of House no.-142
Mander Nagar Kharar District Mohali and Manjot Singh son of
Sardul Singh resident of village. Morjand Sikhan District
Hanumangarh Rajasthan was traveling in vehicle HR 26 AB 7878
mark Skoda. who lived together as they were mutual friends and
Heera Singh alias Deep uses my brother-in-law Rajinder Singh’s
Alto car color white as a taxi. Hira Singh aka Deep had caused an
accident due to which the car broke down and huge damage was
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 05:33:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140696
CRM-M-52206-2024
3
done. The cost of which was 40 thousand rupees was paid by Hira
Singh alias Deep. Therafter Hira Singh alias Deep used to demand
that 40 thousand rupees from my brother-in-law. Thereafter Hira
Singh alias Deep cleverly transferred 40 thousand rupees from my
brother-in-law Rajinder Singh’s account to his account through the
net. Because of which my brother-in-law Rajinder Singh had
dispute with Hira Singh alias Deep and Hira Singh is having
grudge against my brother-in-law. Now I was fully convinced that
my brother-in- law Rajinder Singh was abducted and murdered by
Hira Singh alias Deep, Amandeep Singh, Prabhjot Singh and
Manjot Singh and his body was mutilated. Appropriate legal action
should be taken against them. The written statement is correct after
hearing and reading it. Sd/-Gagan Kumar Attested/-Sukhveer
Singh, Attested/ Harjinder Singh SI/SHO Station House Officer,
Police Station City Kharar, Dated 23-2-2023.’
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 as per the
allegations, the petitioner along with other co-accused has kidnapped and
murdered brother-in-law of the complainant due to some money dispute.
He submits that the charges have already been framed against the present
petitioner and other co-accused on 04.01.2024 and the complainant
namely Gagan Kumar has been examined by the prosecution and has
been turned hostile qua the present petitioner, therefore, there is strong
probability of his earning acquittal. He has further argued that the
antecedents of the petitioner are clean and no fruitful purpose would be
served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars as conclusion of trial
would take long time as out of total 37 Prosecution Witnesses, only 2
PWs have been examined so far.
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 05:33:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140696
CRM-M-52206-2024
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.
According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 7 months and
11 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the
petitioner is involved in serious allegations but is not in a position to
controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He
informs the Court that in the present FIR challan stands presented on
30.05.2023 and charges stands framed on 04.01.2024.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled
out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration of 1
year, 7 months and 11 day, challan stands presented on 30.05.2023 and
charges stands framed on 04.01.2024, antecedents of the petitioner are
clean, meaning thereby he is not a habitual offender, complainant has
turned hostile, hence, probability of earning acquittal cannot be denied,
and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be
considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt and out
of 37 prosecution witnesses, only 2 PWs have been examined so far
which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is
likely to take considerable time, therefore, detaining the petitioner behind
the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose.
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 05:33:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140696
CRM-M-52206-2024
5
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.
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.
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 05:33:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140696CRM-M-52206-2024
6Similarly, 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
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.
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 05:33:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140696
CRM-M-52206-2024
7
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
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.
5. Decision:
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.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 05:33:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140696CRM-M-52206-2024
8The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
25.10.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 05:33:39 :::