Legally Bharat

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhdeep Singh Alias Sukh vs State Of Punjab on 29 August, 2024

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111247



CRM-M-16064-2024 (O&M)


                                                - 1-


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH
109
                                                       CRM-M-16064-2024 (O&M)
                                                       Date of decision: 29.08.2024

SUKHDEEP SINGH ALIAS SUKH                                            ....Petitioner

                                 Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB                                                      ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present :    Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, DAG, Punjab.

KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner craves for indulgence of

this Court for his being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.130 dated

05.07.2023, under Sections 304, 201 and 34 of IPC, and under Sections 27 and 29

of the NDPS Act, (Section 302 of IPC was added later on) registered at Police

Station City-I, Abohar, District Fazilka.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER

2. The case as set up by the prosecution is that, on 03.07.2023,

complainant Surinder Pal reported that his son was working at Wearwell Showroom,

Abohar, and he did not return home, and after searching for him for some time, the

complainant came to know that at about 1:15 PM, on 03.07.2023, his son Chandan

had been taken away by some unknown youth on his motorcycle. On further

inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that present petitioner, had

taken his son Chandan on his motorcycle, and they went to accused Ankush, brother-

1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:14:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111247

CRM-M-16064-2024 (O&M)

– 2-

in-law of deceased Chandan, and accused Ankush purchased intoxicants from

accused Boota Singh @ Laddo, and thereafter, they took Chandan with them near

canal, situated at Sri Ganganagar to Fazilka bypass at Abohar, where accusd Balram

@ Raman, and Anmol were already present there. The aforesaid accused/youths

gave an over dose of intoxicants to Chandan, due to which Chandan died, and the

accused threw his dead body in the bushes, on the side of the road. Aforesaid

statement was suffered by the complainant on 05.07.2023, on the basis of which, the

instant FIR was registered, and thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in the instant

matter, thereupon, the petitioner was granted the relief of regular bail, vide order

dated 05.09.2023, in case FIR No.130 dated 05.07.2023, under Sections 304/201/34

of IPC & under Sections 27/29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police City-I, Abohar.

During investigation, on the basis of the medical opinion of the doctor, as the

deceased suffered head injury, offence under Section 302 of IPC was added in the

FIR in question, vide DDR No.61 dated 21.11.2023, and the petitioner was re-

arrested in the instant case. The recovery as effected from the present petitioner is a

broken mobile phone of the deceased-Chandan, and one syringe, used in the

commission of the crime.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the hereinabove

extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-

(i) Earlier the petitioner was granted bail in the instant FIR, and only

on the basis of the medical opinion of the Doctor, Section 302 of IPC

was added, and thereupon, he was re-arrested in the instant matter;

(ii) Except the disclosure statement, that he caused injury with the

2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111247

CRM-M-16064-2024 (O&M)

– 3-

brickbat upon the deceased, there is no other incriminating material

with the prosecution to connect the present petitioner with the instant

crime;

(iii) In order to exaggerate the offence, the prosecution has improved

their version of story, and earlier the case of the prosecution was that,

because of the over-dose of intoxicant substance, the deceased had

died, and now the prosecution has come up with the story that it was

the petitioner who has given a brickbat blow to the deceased, which

led to his death;

(iv) Petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 09 months, as

on today.

(v) Out of the total 26 prosecution witnesses cited in the final

report, none has been examined till date.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel, has vociferously opposed the

grant of regular bail to the present petitioner, and submits that there is sufficient

evidence with the prosecution to held that the petitioner is guilty in the instant

matter. Learned State counsel further submits that the other co-accused has also

disclosed that it was the petitioner, who gave brickbat blow to the deceased.

Learned State counsel has placed on record the custody certificate qua the petitioner,

as issued by the Superintendent of Central Jail Faridkot. The same is taken on

record. A perusal of the custody certificate reveals that the petitioner has suffered

incarceration of 09 months and 04 days, as on today. Learned State counsel on

instructions, imparted to him by ASI Kulwinder Singh, submits that after conclusion

3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111247

CRM-M-16064-2024 (O&M)

– 4-

of the investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., had already been

filed, but the charges are yet to be framed. Learned State counsel further submits

that out of the total 26 prosecution witnesses cited in the final report, none has been

examined till date.

ANALYSIS

5. 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.

6. “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an 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

Baliay”, 1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535. This principle finds 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 ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any

inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured

otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.

7. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person.

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.

8. In “Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab”, (1980) 2 SCC 565

at 586-588, the purpose of granting bail is set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111247

CRM-M-16064-2024 (O&M)

– 5-

with great felicity as follows:-

“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 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 granted 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 upon 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 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 High Court, the variety 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 principle 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

5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111247

CRM-M-16064-2024 (O&M)

– 6-
properly defend himself 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 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,
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 recognizance 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 cannot be treated as of universal validity or
as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail.”

9. Also, in “Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others Versus Public

Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh”, 1978 AIR (Supreme Court) 429,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, speaking through Krishna Iyer, J., has enunciated the

principles of bail thus :

“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

6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111247

CRM-M-16064-2024 (O&M)

– 7-
antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has
a bad record-particularly a record which suggests that he is likely
to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard 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 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 of
freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the 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 for securing the presence 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 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-jails, that
the unrewarding cruelty 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

7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111247

CRM-M-16064-2024 (O&M)

– 8-
liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction
along an anti-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. 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.

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. 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 facie 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-
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 and policy prediction of criminal prospects to invalidate
the bail plea are admissible in principle but shall not stampede the

8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111247

CRM-M-16064-2024 (O&M)

– 9-

court into a complacent refusal.”

10. This Court has examined the instant petition on the touchstone of the

hereinabove extracted settled legal principle(s) of law and is of the considered

opinion that the instant petition is amenable for being allowed.

11. The reason for forming the above inference emanates from the factum

that:- (i) Earlier the petitioner was granted the relief of regular bail by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, vide order dated 05.09.2023; (ii) The petitioner

has suffered incarceration of 09 months and 04 days, as on today; (iii) Out of the

total 26 prosecution witnesses cited in the final report, none has been examined till

date. (iv) Whether, the disclosure of the petitioner, and the other co-accused is a

sufficient evidence, to connect the present petitioner with the instant crime, is a moot

question of law, which is to be adjudicated by the learned trial Court concerned, (v)

All other co-accused have been granted the relief of bail, either by this Court, or by

the learned trial Court concerned; (vi) No fruitful purpose would be served by

keeping the petitioner behind the bars; (vii) Trial is not likely to conclude anytime

soon.

FINAL ORDER

12. Considering the hereinabove made discussion, this Court deems it fit

and appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Therefore,

without commenting upon the merits and circumstances of the present case, the

present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on

furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned Chief

Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

13. However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on

9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:14:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111247

CRM-M-16064-2024 (O&M)

– 10-

the merits of the trial, and is only meant for deciding the present petition.

14. All pending application(s) stand disposed of accordingly.

15. However, it is clarified that if in future, the petitioner is found

indulging in commission of similar offences, as are involved herein, the

respondent-State shall be at liberty to make an appropriate application seeking

cancellation of regular bail, as granted by this Court.





                                                    (KULDEEP TIWARI)
29.08.2024                                              JUDGE
amandeep
             Whether speaking/reasoned.             :   Yes/No
             Whether Reportable.                    :   Yes/No




                                     10 of 10
                   ::: Downloaded on - 31-08-2024 21:14:59 :::
 

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *