Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pirthipal Singh Alias Prithipal Singh ... vs State Of Punjab on 6 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117016
CRM-M-42476-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
204 CRM-M-42476-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 06.09.2024
PIRTHIPAL SINGH ALIAS PRITHIPAL SINGH ALIAS LALI
...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the fifth time under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.159, dated 26.09.2023, under Sections 304, 34, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City 1 Mansa, District Mansa.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR read as under :-
'Copy of statement, Statement of Karamjit Kaur wife of Jugraj Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Ward No.21, Mansa, aged about 55 years, M.No.94170-29011 stated that I am resident of above mentioned address. I am household lady. I have three children i.e. daughter namely Prabhjot Kaur elder from all who is not married till now and is residing with me and younger to her, my daughter Kirandeep Kaur wife of Satwinder Singh, resident of Sardulgarh and younger to her, my son Parwinder Singh. My husband Jugraj Singh who was working in Water Supply and after his death in the year 2011, my son Parwinder Singh got obtained 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2024 07:07:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117016 CRM-M-42476-2024 2 job in Water Supply in the place of my husband. After obtaining job to my son, he has started taking intoxicant. On 20.09.2023, due to overdose of intoxicant, I got admitted him in Hospital of Sunil Bansal and where, he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and where during treatment he has expired on 24.09.2023 at about 09:15 PM. That my son Parwinder Singh used to take intoxicant from Pirthipal alias Lali, Pritpal Singh and wife of Pirthipal alias Lali whose name not aware to me, resident near ion Chugli Ghar, Mansa and one Satnam Singh alias Kaka Member Son of Dulla Singh, resident Jawahar Ke. We alongwith other respectable persons make understand to these persons by visiting in their house many times that you have not to supply intoxicant to my son but they did not stopped from supplying intoxicant to my son and now my son Parwinder Singh has been died then all these persons are responsible of his death. If they did not supply intoxicant to my son then my son will not die. Legal action be taken against all of them. Statement got recorded with you, heard, correct. There is possibility that except the above said persons there are other persons can supply intoxicant to him. RTI Karamjit Kaur above said. Verified Sd/- Parwinder Singh alias Jhota Son of Bhim Singh, resident of Ward No.21, Mansa. Attested Sa/-SHO PS City I, Mansa dated 26.09.2023."
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. He contends that there is an inordinate delay of six days in lodging the instant FIR and the most material witness i.e. the complainant has turned hostile. He further contends that there is no incriminating material or evidence available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the commissioning of alleged offence. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his co-accused, namely, Satnam Singh @ Kaka and Pritpal 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2024 07:07:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117016 CRM-M-42476-2024 3 Singh have been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2024 and 28.08.2024 passed in CRM-M-62287-2023 and CRM-M-32979-2024 respectively. He submits that 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 17 Prosecution Witnesses, only one has been examined so far. 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 10 months and 22 day. He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in other FIRs also. He informs the Court that in the present FIR challan stands presented on 24.11.2023 and charges stand framed on 27.05.2024.
4. Analysis Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 10 months and 22 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail; the material witness i.e. the complainant has turned hostile added with the facts that challan stands presented on 24.11.2023, charges have been framed on 27.05.2024 and out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined till date, which is suffice for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial will take a long time for which the petitioner cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite period and further, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2024 07:07:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117016 CRM-M-42476-2024 4 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.
4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2024 07:07:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117016 CRM-M-42476-2024 5 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 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.
5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2024 07:07:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117016 CRM-M-42476-2024 6 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.
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 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2024 07:07:29 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117016 CRM-M-42476-2024 7 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 cases/convictions in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the concession of bail.
5. Decision:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on his/her 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.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE
06.09.2024 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 7 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2024 07:07:29 :::