Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharminder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 February, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016770
CRM-M-2480-2025 -1-
229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2480-2025
DECIDED ON: 05.02.2025
DHARMINDER SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rubal Pawar, AAG Punjab
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 40 Date:
12.5.2024 u/s 379 B, 34 IPC (Section 473,411,201 IPC added later on) P.S. IT City District SAS Nagar.
2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
"Copy of statement "statement of LovePreet Singh son of Gurpal Singh resident of village Khetla Police Station Didhba districts Sangrur now resident of village Dyalpur Police Station Zirakpur district SAS Nagar page about 25 years mobile No. 98555-09950. Stated that I am resident of above said address and I do the work of driving. On 11-5-2024 I was driving car bearing registration number PB-0 1-D 0409 make Swift Dzire and was coming from village Didhba to village Dyalpur. When I reached near petrol pump KFC then suddenly I was feeling asleep. When I by parking my car 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 07-02-2025 02:50:37 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016770 CRM-M-2480-2025 -2- above said on the roadside started taking rest. Then on 12-0 5-2024 time would be around 4:30 AM 3 persons came and started knocking the glass on the driver side. Then I lowered the class little bit. The said that they have to go Kharar but I said that I don't have to. In the meanwhile they removed the key of the above numbered my car due to which my car got unlocked. Then they removed me from the car by holding me from the collar and started fighting with me. In the meanwhile one of the boy who was holding some iron thing in his hand hit me in the head. Then all the 3 persons after catching me spew me on the ground and took away my car bearing number PB-0 1-D-0409 make Swift Dzire. Then I called on the No. 1 1 2 for a long time but the call could not connect. Then I told the entire incident to the order of the above said car namely Amandeep Singh son of Gurtej Singh resident of Khetla Police Station Didhba district Sangrur and I went to Dyalpura on foot. Inside the car was lying the RC of the car, my purse and RC of another car bearing number PB-0 1-D-4161. Along with the car they have taken that as well. I have come to inform you that the Police Station. Legal action be taken against all the 3 persons who have snatched the car bearing registration number PB-0 1-D-0409. I have got recorded my statement, heard and is correct. True love Preet Singh author."
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery was effected from him. He further submits that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor involved in the present crime as alleged in the present FIR. He asserts that the petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2024 and the investigation is complete and challan stands presented.
On behalf of the State Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present petition stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in other cases.
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 07-02-2025 02:50:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016770 CRM-M-2480-2025 -3-
4. Analysis The custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e., 6 months and 9 and investigation is complete, challan stands presented on 25.09.2024, charges have been framed on 02.01.2025 and 11 prosecution witnesses are to be examined. This Court is sanguine of the fact that conclusion of trial shall take considerable time , no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars, wherein "bail is a rule and jail is an exception" and it would also violate the principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been time and again discussed by this Court, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 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.
3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 07-02-2025 02:50:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016770 CRM-M-2480-2025 -4-
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. 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.
4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 07-02-2025 02:50:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016770 CRM-M-2480-2025 -5- Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. 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 basic and 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 contention of learned State counsel with regard to 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 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 07-02-2025 02:50:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016770 CRM-M-2480-2025 -6- same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the 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 lend the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.
5. DECISION:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
05.02.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 07-02-2025 02:50:38 :::