Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankit vs State Of Haryana on 1 August, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-2302-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 01, 2024
ANKIT ....Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey,Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.(ORAL)
1. Relief sought This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14- A(2) of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (Amended 2015 and 2018) in FIR No.129 dated 13.06.2022 under Sections 148, 149, 302, 323 of IPC and Section 3 of SC, ST Act (Section 325, 120-B, 201 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Rampura, District Rewari (Haryana) whereby he is seeking the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR as under:-
"It is submitted I Sanjay son of Rajbir resident Devnagar Cast Valmiki Klopur Rampura District Rewari 1 have threebrothers and one and all of them are married My father is expired my mother is alive I alongwith my brother Anil lives in our own house in Devnagar KatopurMy elder SANGEETA Sunil son of Rajbirwas living on rent in Adarsh Nagarnear 2024.08.03 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment old electricityofce and his two sons Sohit andMohit also CRA-S-2302-2024 (O&M) 2 lives with him That tonightie of 1213062022 around 1230 midnight Amit son of JW Lawrence Budhdhmata Katopurtook my brother Sunil from homeand in front of the gateof Old Electricity Office and the shop of Gaurav Gauri SO Brijbhushan Akash Krishan sons of Rajkumar Mohit Gauri Sharma sons of Brijbhushan Gauris cousin Prince 85 Krishana Manish SO Lala Sivdu SO Nathiram and Mithal residents iof Adarsh Nagar Katopur and Prashant Krishnas mamas son Vishal amp VishalAhir ro Karikarwali were hiding there after parkingtheirears on the side Allof them were having sharp rod lathis dandas and other boys also there Theyattacked onmy brother and hit on his head and broke both legsand arms with lathis dandas rods and also causedserious injuryon head That I my brother Anil Dhaniyaand my nephewSohit and my brother Sunils Sala Ravi were present on the spot And we tried to save my brother That these I persons have caused unjustied serious injuries to my brother After causing Akash 85Krishan in Creta and Scorpioand Gauri inhis Bolero ed away Mohit fled away on his KTM That these persons fled away leaving my brother half dead. After giving information on 112, we got our rother admitted at GH, Rewari where due to serious injuries, he was referred by the doctor to PGIMS Rohtak. When we were taking my brother to PGIMS Rohtak in govt. ambulance, he dies on the way near Jhajjar due to injuries. On declaring dead by the doctor at GH Jhajjar, the ambulance placed the dead body in the dead house. That my brother has been killed by all of them by causing injuries. Legal action be taken against them. Sd/ Sanjay Balmiki S/o Rajbir resident of Katopur Reward. 9350008021."SANGEETA 2024.08.03 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRA-S-2302-2024 (O&M) 3
3. Contentions On behalf of the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the other co-accused persons have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2023, 16.04.2024, 10.05.2024, 27.05.2024 and 31.05.2024 (Annexures P-4 to P-8 respectively) and on merits, learned counsel also contends that the present appellant has not been named in the instant FIR and no overact has been attributed to him, except being a part of alleged conspiracy. It is pertinent to mention here that in the instant FIR, Sections 325, 120-B and 201 IPC 1860 were added later on.
On behalf of the State The aforesaid submission have not been controverted by the learned State counsel on the ground that appellant has already undergone custody period of 02 years 01 months and 13 days.
4. As per office report dated 31.07.2024, notice issued to respondent No.2 has been received back with the report that he has refused to accept the notice, however, affixation of the summons was made.
In the light of the above, this Court would deem that the service has been effected in accordance with law and accordingly the Court would proceed ex parte against respondent No.2-complainant.
5. Analysis Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 02 years, 01 months and 13 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration;
and charges having been framed on 12.01.2023 also out of total 24 SANGEETA 2024.08.03 09:15 prosecution witnesses, only 08 witnesses have been examined till date, I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRA-S-2302-2024 (O&M) 4 which is sufficient enough for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial will take a long time for which the appellant cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite period.
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, SANGEETA occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether 2024.08.03 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRA-S-2302-2024 (O&M) 5 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. 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 SANGEETA custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for 2024.08.03 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this this including maintaining the dignity of an accused order/judgment CRA-S-2302-2024 (O&M) 6 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. 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 SANGEETA 2024.08.03 09:15 basic fundamental law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRA-S-2302-2024 (O&M) 7 and just procedure guaranteed 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.
5. DECISION:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the appellant is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
In the afore-said terms, the present appeal 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) JUDGE 01.08.2024 Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SANGEETA 2024.08.03 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment