Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh Alias Seta vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124304
CRM-M-36280-2024 - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
109
CRM-M-36280-2024
Date of decision: 19.09.2024
SURJIT SINGH ALIAS SETA ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Pardeep Bajaj, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate
for the complainant.
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.10, dated
16.03.2023, under Sections 307, 506 and 34 of IPC (Section 302 IPC, added later
on), registered at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, District Kapurthala.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
2. The instant FIR has been registered on a complaint made by one
Amarjit Singh son of Gurdip Singh, wherein, he alleged that the present petitioner
alongwith his son Jaskarnjit Singh alias Jassa, by attacking on his brother-
Daljinder Singh, caused his death. The relevant extract of the FIR reads as under:-
“Stated that I am resident of above address and do work of dairy. We are two
brothers and my elder brother is Daljinder Singh whose age is about 32 years
and he is unmarried. I am younger to him and I have one sister. Today on
16.03.2023 at about 1:00 PM I and my brother Daljinder Singh were doing1 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 22-09-2024 07:26:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124304CRM-M-36280-2024 – 2-
Sewa (service) at place of Peer Baba Lakh Data Ji as today there was a
wrestling/Kabaddi mela (Fair) at the said shrined and Jaskaranjit Singh @
Jassa and his father Surjit Singh @ Seeta were also doing Sewa (service)
there. Surjit Singh @ Seeta abused me and I asked him uncle why are you
abusing me. In the meantime son of Surjit Singh @ Seeta namely Jaskaranjit
Singh @ Jassa also came there and started quarreling with me. Surjit Singh
@ Seeta said today I will not leave him. In the meantime my brother
Daljinder Singh also came there and tried to separate us. Surjit Singh @Seeta
said first let us teach a lesson to his elder brother. Jaskaranjit Singh @Jassa
picked up an iron datar lying near him and with an intention to kill hit the
same on left side of my brother’s head. My brother fell down. I raised alarm
Mar Ditta Mar Ditta. In the meantime people started gathering and Surjit
Singh @ Seeta and Jaskaranjit Singh @ Jassa residents of Sunarwal P.S.
Sadar, Kapurthala fled away from the spot alongwith the datar. I arranged for
a vehicle and took my brother to Govt. Hospital, Kala Sanghian where
doctor checked him and expressed helplessness. Then I took my brother to
Satyam Hospital, Jalandhar where he is under treatment. Legal action be
taken. I have given this statement in presence of my uncle’s son Palwinder
Singh son of Gurnam Singh resident of village Sunarwal.”
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the
hereinabove, submits that no specific injury is attributed to the present petitioner,
and the only role assigned to him is that he raised lalkara.
4. He further submits that the deceased has suffered only a single injury,
that is attributed to his son, Jaskarnjit Singh, who has already been arrested, and is
facing the trial.
5. He also submits that the petitioner is having clean antecedents, and
has already suffered incarceration of about 1 ½ years, as on today.
6. He over and above submits that in case the petitioner is granted the
relief of regular, he is ready to give an undertaking that he will not visit his village,
till the completion of examination of all the private witnesses, as cited by the
prosecution agency.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
7. Per contra, the learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for
the complainant, vociferously opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner,
and submits that the petitioner has not only raised lalkara, but instigated the main
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 22-09-2024 07:26:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124304
CRM-M-36280-2024 – 3-
accused Jaskaranjit Singh, who caused head injury to the brother of the
complainant, with the dater (iron sickle). Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled
for the grant of regular bail.
8. He has placed on record a custody certificate qua the petitioner,
which reflects that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year 05 months
and 29 days, as on today, and he is not involved in any other criminal case.
9. He further, on instructions imparted to him by ASI Jarnail Singh,
informs this Court that in the instant case, a final report has already been filed, and
the charges have also been framed way back on dated 24.07.2023, and till today
out of the total 24 witnesses cited by the prosecution only one witness has been
examined, i.e. the complainant.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that four eyewitnesses
and three other witnesses, cited by the prosecution are in fact residing in the
vicinity of the present petitioner, therefore, in case the petitioner is released on
regular bail, he may influence these witnesses.
ANALYSIS
11. 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.
12. “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
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 22-09-2024 07:26:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124304
CRM-M-36280-2024 – 4-
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.
13. 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.
14. 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
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 Allahabad4 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 22-09-2024 07:26:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124304CRM-M-36280-2024 – 5-
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
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.”
15. Also, in “Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others Versus Public
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 22-09-2024 07:26:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124304
CRM-M-36280-2024 – 6-
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 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
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 22-09-2024 07:26:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124304
CRM-M-36280-2024 – 7-
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
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.
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 22-09-2024 07:26:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124304
CRM-M-36280-2024 - 8-
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
court into a complacent refusal.”
16. This Court has examined the instant petition on the touchstone of the
hereinabove extracted settled legal principle(s) of law and has considered the rival
submissions and is of the considered opinion that the instant petition is amenable
for being allowed.
17. The reason for forming the above inference emanates from the factum
that:- (i) there is no allegation against the present petitioner that he caused any
injury to the deceased or any other person; (ii) the only role attributed to the
petitioner is that he raised lalkara; (iii) the petitioner has suffered incarceration of
01 year 05 months and 29 days, as on today and he is not involved in any other
criminal case; (iv) out of the total 24 prosecution witnesses cited in the final
report, only one witness has been examined till date, therefore the trial is progress
at a snail pace; (v) no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner
behind the bars.
FINAL ORDER
18. 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.
19. The petitioner is also directed not to visit his village till the
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 22-09-2024 07:26:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124304
CRM-M-36280-2024 – 9-
completion of examination of seven witnesses namely, Palwinder Singh, Paramjit
Kaur, Iqbal Singh and Harjinder Singh, Tarlochan Singh, Jaspal Singh and
Baldev Singh, who are also residing in the same village. He shall furnish an
undertaking in this regard before the court concerned, at the time of furnishing
bail bonds.
20. 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. Moreover, anything
observed here-in-above shall have no effect on the merits of the trial and is meant
for deciding the present petition only.
21. However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on
the merits of the trial, and is only meant for deciding the present petition.
22. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
19.09.2024 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 22-09-2024 07:26:02 :::