Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aryan Singh @ Raja vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050315
CRM-M-18726-2025 -1-
213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-18726-2025
DECIDED ON: 21.04.2025
ARYAN SINGH @ RAJA
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Kr. Vikas P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG Punjab
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 268, dated 09.12.2023, under Section 379-B (2) and 34 IPC (Sections 307 and 411 of IPC added later on) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Jamalpur, District Ludhiana.
2. Facts The facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
"Statement of Suraj Kumar, son of Shri Chatter Bhuj Singh resident of House No. 1135/223, street number 9, Sarpanch colony, bank side, Chetan Little Public school, Jamalpur Ludhiana, age about 33 years phone No. 9646682466 that I am resident of above mentioned address. I am running my medical store (Rajput medicose) in front of Jain Hospital, on Chandigarh Road. On 08.12.2023, I was present in my shop as usual and at 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-04-2025 23:53:26 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050315 CRM-M-18726-2025 -2- 11 PM, was preparing to close my shop, then I have put my all the luggage in one bag which includes one laptop ( HP) colour grey, two mobile phone i.e. Samsung S 23 ultra, dark grey, Oppo Reno-3 pio colour sky blue, cash about Rs. 1,20,000, having four credit card, HDFC bank, Indsind Bank, IDFC bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank, my Aadhaar card, pan card and original RC of my car P91L01913. All three young man having trimmed hair came to my shop upon a motorcycle and all three came inside the shop and pointed toward me one pistol like weapon and start threatening me and snatched my bag and demanded for more cash. When I said that I have no other money. All the money is in the bag, then they do not accept it and fire on my right leg with his weapon, which hit upon my right kree and blood start oozing from my knee and I got afraid and sit down. Then one of them try to came inside the counter. Then I raised noise of thief- thief, then all three along with the bag run-away from there, I have taken treatment from Ghati Hospital. There, Dr after checkup and x-ray stated that bullet has gone out the body. I have recorded my statement to you, read, heard, it is correct. A legal action be taken against above persons as per Law. Sd/- Suraj Kumar (in English) attested Palwinder Pal ASI police station Jamalpur Ludhiana dated 09.12.2023 police station, Jamalpur Ludhiana."
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case just to inflate the figure of cases. He further submits that the investigation is completed in the present case and after framing of charges on 04.03.2024, till date no prosecution witnesses have been examined. The petitioner is in custody for the last one year, 4 months. He has drawn attention of this Court to an order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed in CRM-M-8877-2025 vide which 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-04-2025 23:53:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050315 CRM-M-18726-2025 -3- co-accused namely Sunil Kumar from whom one pistol and two live cartridges were recovered, has already been granted the concession of regular bail, whereas the case of the petitioner is at better footing.
4. 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 on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender being involved in various cases.
5. Analysis Considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e. 1 year, 4 months and that the co-accused namely Sunil Kumar has already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed in CRM-M-8877-2025 and the fact that the case of the petitioner is at better footing from him as one pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from the co-accused namely Sunil Kumar added with the fact that the investigation already stands concluded, challan stands presented on 20.01.2024 and after framing of charges on 04.03.2024, out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined, meaning thereby, conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, which would curtail his right for speedy trial and expeditious disposal, as enshrined under Article 21 of the 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 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-04-2025 23:53:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050315 CRM-M-18726-2025 -4- 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. 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 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-04-2025 23:53:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050315 CRM-M-18726-2025 -5- 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. 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 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-04-2025 23:53:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050315 CRM-M-18726-2025 -6- 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 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.
6. Relief:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/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)
21.04.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 21-04-2025 23:53:27 :::