Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramandeep Singh @ Bhalla vs State Of Punjab on 5 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116369
CRM-M-18765
18765-2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(213) CRM-M-18765-2023
Date of Decision : 05.09.2024
Ramandeep Singh @ Bhalla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Ms. Dhivya Jerath, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
****
KULDEEP TIWARI,
TIWARI J.(Oral)
1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.,
Cr.P.C.
the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.
No.79 dated
17.05.2022 under Sections 302,
02, 427, 148 and 149 of the IPC, 1860 registered
at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpu
Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1).
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
suffered
d incarceration of more than 02 years and 03 months as on date, and
asking for the relief (supra),
(supra) submits that the petitioner is not named in the
FIR. Even in the disclosure statement of the main accused, the name of the
petitioner does not figure out, rather, his name was figured out on dated
23.05.2022,, on the disclosure statement of Harpreet Singh @ Happy.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the weapon of offence i.e.
danda, which is alleged to have been recovered on the disclosure statement of
the present petitioner,
petitioner does not connect the present petitioner with the instant
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 03:56:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116369
CRM-M-18765
18765-2023 2
crime. The identification
identif parade which was effected in the police station
station, at
the best carry the evidentiary value equivalent to the statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, can only be used for the purpose of
confrontation that too by an accused and besides this carries no value.
confrontation,
Finally, she submits that most of the star witnesses have turned hostile,
hostile
except the complainant, who is stated to be an eye
eye-witness, and who was
present at the spot, is surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the role of the
petitioner is clearly figured out in the disclosure statement of the co
co-accused
accused
Harpreet Singh @ Happy, as one of the assailant, who has caused injuries,
injuries
with a danda
dand and the weapon of offence was also recovered
recovered. A specific short
reply dated 19.01.2024 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Harkrishan Singh,
PPs, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub
Sub-Division
Division Dasuya, District
Hoshiarpur on behalf of the respondent-State
respondent State of Punjab, is already on the
record wherein,
wherein the role of the petitioner is recorded as under ::-
“9. That it is submitted that the petitioners and others
were nominated in NOS the present case on the basis of
confession statement of accused Kulwinder Singh @
Kindu. On 16.05.2022, the petitioner alongwithSarabjit
Singh @ Sabbi, Satwinder Singh @ Kali, Harpreet Singh
@ Happy and Kulwinder Singh @ Kindu caused injuries
to Kulvir Singh with Datar, Kirpan and Dandas and
murdered him. The petitioner and others were identified
by the complainant and weapons used in the commission
of the offence were recovered from the petitioner and
others. The allegations against the petitioner are of
serious nature and as such the present petition is liable to
be dismissed.”
2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 03:56:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116369
CRM-M-18765
18765-2023 3
5. Learned
arned State counsel further submits that out of total 20
witnesses cited by the prosecution, 02 have already been examined, and one
witness has been given up. He also placed on record the custody certificate,
certificate
qua the petitioner, dated 04.09.2024, in Court today, the same is taken on
record, which reflects that the petitioner in involved in one other criminal
case i.e. a case of jail offence,
offence, which the petitioner is alleged to have
committed while in the custody,
custody in the instant FIR
FIR, and as on date, the
petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 02 years and 03 months.
months
The instant FIR has been registered on a statement made by Hardeep Singh,
which became the bedrock for the registration of the FIR. The relevant
extract of the FIR reads as under :-
“On 16-05- 2022, my brother Kulveer Singh was going
back home from Dasuya on the said vehicle and I was
also riding my motorcycle behind my brother, when we
reached at Tavern near Tehare at about 8 PM, My
brother is fond of drinking aalcohol
lcohol who stopped his
vehicle at Tavern in village Tehare then I also parked my
motorcycle little behind. Kulwinder Singh @ Kindu who
worked in the tavern, son of Shaukeen Singh resident of
Village Tihara armed with datar, and other unknown
persons armed with datar started attacking the car and
broke the windows of my brother’s vehicle. Kulwinder
Singh @ Kindu took out my brother from car continuously
attacked with his datar on his head and other body parts
and other unknown persons also attacked my brothe
brotherr with
datar. As I am little behind from the card, therefore, I
could not identify the unknown persons but I could
recognize them when they appeared in front of me.
Thereafter all the persons ran away from the spot
alongwith their weapons. I take my brothe
brotherr in the same
vehicle and brought him to Civil Hospital Dasuya, where3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 03:56:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116369CRM-M-18765
18765-2023 4the doctor declared my brother dead. After keeping the
body in mortuary, I brought my brother Gurnam Singh
and relatives to the hospital. The reason of the grudge is
that, Kulwinder Singh’s
h’s wife Gurjit Kaur used to work and
take care of the child at my brother’s house and
Kulwinder Singh has suspicion on his wife and my
brother, upon which Kulwinder Singh @ Kindu by
keeping grudge with my brother had murdered him in
connivance with his companions.
mpanions.”
ANALYSIS
6. Before embarking upon the process of evaluating the arguments
addressed by the learned counsels for the parties and penning down any
opinion upon the instant petition, it is deemed imperative to capture an
overview of some significant legal propositions.
7. “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception”
Exception”.. This basic principle
of criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, way
back in 1978, in its landmark judgment titled “State of Rajasthan V.
Balchand alias
alias Baliay”, 1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535. This principlefinds its roots in one of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though the underlying
objective behind detention of a person is to eensure
nsure easy availability of anaccused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence
of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.
8. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained
person. However,
However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall
also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal
jurisprudence, which is “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity
of offence(s) involved.
4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 03:56:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116369
CRM-M-18765
18765-2023 5
9. In “Gurbaksh Singh
ngh Sibbia v. State of Punjab”, (1980) 2 SCC
565 at 586-588,
586 the purpose of granting bail is set out by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court with great felicity as follows
follows:-
“27.
27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal
with the right to ordinary bail because that right does not
furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It
is, however, interesting that as long back as in 1924 it was
held by the High
gh Court of Calcutta in Nagendra v. King
Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 (479, 480) that the
object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at
the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution
of the question whether bail should be gr
granted
anted or refused
is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take
his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to be
withheld as a punishment. In two other cases which,
significantly, are the ‘Meerut Conspiracy cases
observations are to be found regarding the right to bail
which deserve a special mention. In K.N. Joglekar v.
Emperor, AIR 1931 Allahabad 504 (SB) it was observed,
while dealing with Section 498 which corresponds to the
present Section 439 of the Code, that it conferred up
upon
on the
Sessions Judge or the High Court wide powers to grant
bail which were not handicapped by the restrictions in the
preceding Section 497 which corresponds to the present
Section 437. It was observed by the Court that there was
no hard and fast rule and
d no inflexible principle governing
the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 498 and
that the only principle which was established was that the
discretion should be exercised judiciously. In Emperor v.
H.L. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 at p. 358 it was
said that it was very unwise to make an attempt to lay
down any particular rules which bind the High Court,
having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the
discretion of the Court unfettered. According to the High5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 03:56:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116369CRM-M-18765
18765-2023 6Court, the variety
riety of cases that may arise from time to time
cannot be safely classified and it is dangerous to make an
attempt to classify the cases and to say that in particular
classes a bail may be granted but not in other classes. It
was observed that the principl
principlee to be deduced from the
various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that
grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An
accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better
position to look after his case and to properly defend
himselff than if he were in custody. As a presumably
innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and
every opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably
innocent person must have his freedom to enable him to
establish his innocence.
XX XX XX
29. In
n Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1
SCC 118 it was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for
the Court, that “there cannot be an inexorable formula in
the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of
each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in
granting or cancelling bail”.
30. In American Jurisprudence (2d, Vol. 8, page 806, para
39) it is stated :
“Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the
court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large
extent,
t, by the facts and circumstances of each particular
case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of
the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to
the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary
inquiry is whether a recog
recognizance
nizance or bond would effect
that end.”
It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or
not depends for its answer upon a variety of
circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter
into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 03:56:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116369
CRM-M-18765
18765-2023 7
cannot be treated as of universal valid
validity
ity or as necessarily
justifying the grant or refusal of bail.”
10. Also, in “GudikantiNarasimhulu and others Versus Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh”, 1978 AIR (Supreme Court)
429, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, speaking through Krishna Iyer
Iyer,, J., has
enunciated the principles of bail thus :
“9.
9. Thus the legal principle and practice validate the court
considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with
witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the
process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in
this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who
is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record-
record
particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to
commit serious offences while on bail. In rregard
egard to
habitual, it is part of criminological history that a
thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the
opportunity to inflict further crimes on the member of
society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the
criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise
in irrelevance.
10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the
deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and
permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable,
even-handed
handed and geared to he goals of community good
and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the
considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to
the constitutional proposition I have deduced.
Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates
that deprivation
tion of freedom by refusal of bail is not for
punitive purpose but for the bi
bi-focal interests of justice – to
the individual involved and society affected.
11. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the test
the reasonableness, subject to the need ffor
or securing the
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 03:56:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116369CRM-M-18765
18765-2023 8presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume
that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare of
present his case than one remanded in custody. And if
public justice is to be promoted. mechanical detention
should be demoted. In the United States, which has a
constitutional perspective close to ours, the function of
bail is limited, ‘community roots’ of the applicant are
stressed and, after the Vera Foundation’s Manhattan Bail
Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The
considerable
nsiderable public expense in keeping in custody where
no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is
not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the
deplorable condition, verging on the inhuman, of our sub-
sub
jails, that the unrewarding crue
cruelty
lty and expensive custody
of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail
unreasonable and a policy favouring release justly
sensible.
12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All
deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and
individual
ual correction along an anti
anti-criminal
criminal direction.
Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law.
Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness
should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the
man, even through community service, meditative drill,
study classes or other resources should be innovated, and
playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence,
intimidating witnesses or committing offences while on
judicially sanctioned ‘free enterprise’, should be provided
against.
st. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks
on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung
around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is
the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation
invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values
of our Constitution.
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 03:56:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116369CRM-M-18765
18765-2023 9
13. Viewed from this perspective, we gain a better insight
into the rules of the game. When a person, charged with a
grave offence, has been acquitted at a stage, has the
intermediate acquittal pertinence to a bail plea when the
appeal before this Court pends? Yes, it has. The panic
which might prompt the accused to jump the gauntlet of
justice is less, having enjoyed the confidence of the court’s
verdit once. Concurrent holdings of guilt have the opposite
effect.
ct. Again, the ground for denial of provisional release
becomes weaker when the fact stares us in the face that a
fair finding if that be so – of innocence has been recorded
by one court. It may not be conclusive, for the judgment of
acquittal may be ex fa
facie
cie wrong, the likelihood of
desperate reprisal, if enlarged, may be a deterrent and his
own safety may be more in prison than in the vengeful
village where feuds have provoked the violent offence. It
depends. Antecedents of the man and socio
socio-geographical
geographical
circumstances have a bearing only from this angle. Police
exaggerations of prospective misconduct of the accused, if
enlarged, must be soberly sized up lest danger of excesses
and injustice creep subtly into the discretionary curial
technique. Bad record aand
nd policy prediction of criminal
prospects to invalidate the bail plea are admissible in
principle but shall not stampede the court into a
complacent refusal.”
DECISION
11. This Court has examined the instant petition on the touchstone
of the hereinabove extracted settled legal principle(s) of law and the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned and is of
the considered opinion that the instant petition is amenable to be allowed for
the reasons extracted hereinbelow :-
:
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 03:56:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116369CRM-M-18765
18765-2023 10
i) the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR
and no role whatsoever has been assigned to him. His
name is only figured in the disclosure statement of one
Harpreet Singh,, whose name is also not mentioned in
the FIR;
ii) Further the identification parade in the instance case
was carried out in the police station. The probative value
of such identification parade would be adjudicated by
the learned trial Court at an apt stage;
iii) Further considering the fact that the petitioner has
incarceration of about 02 years, 03 months and 11 days
and only three prosecution witnesses have been
examined so far, this Court is of the considered opinion
that further incarceration of th
thee petitioner is totally
unwarranted.
12. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds and surety bonds to
the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
Magistrate
concerned.
13. However, anything observed here
here-in-above
above shall have no effect
on the merits of the case
case and is meant for deciding the present petition only.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
JUDGE
September 05,
05 2024
Manpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 03:56:41 :::