Shiv Kumar Alias Sumit Alias Sam v. State of Haryana

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

¶1Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked seeking the concession for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.373 dated 19.09.2022, under Sections 147, 149, 216, 302, 323, 341, 364, 325 of the IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Narwana City, District Jind.

¶2Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR read as under :- :FIR No. 373 dated 19.09.2022 u/s 302, 307, 323, 341, 364,   147,   149   IPC   registered   at   PS   Narwana   City,   Jind. Contents of which are:  Statement of Ram Roop S/o Ratnu caste Jaat R/o Keshar Patti Danauda Kalan aged 32 years. Mob No: 8901311952. Stated that I am the resident of the above stated address and I am an agriculturist. We are four brothers and one Anuradha sister. We all reside in our fields of Danauda to Bhikhewala Road. My brother Satyawan and my sister are married. My brother Satyawan has 2 sons, elder one is Gurdeep and the younger one is Madan. My Nephew Madan is studying in KM college, Narwana and after that he do domestic job. Today i.e., on 19.09.2022 at around 09:30 PM my nephew Madan had gone to KM College from our home to collect papers related to study. Then we got information that my nephew Madan had a fight in the college. Then I along with my family members reached Civil hospital,Narwana. There I got to know that my nephew Madan has passed away due to injuries received during fight. Mohit 8/0 Krishan was also admitted in Civil Hospital after sustaining injuries in the fight. Then me and my family members asked about the fight. Mohit s/o Krishan R/o Danauda Kalan told along with Madan s/o Satyawan, us that he Praveen 5/0 Krishan, Ajay S/o Krishan, Deepak s/o Shiv Kumar Sibad, Jatin S/o Pawan, Neeraj S/o Surendra and Ashnain S/o Naresh R/o Danauda Kalan were standing in the park of KM College, Narwana and were talking to each other. Then at around 11:00 AM Sumit @ Justi S/o Salender @Bhuriya caste Barber R/o Narwana came who already had a alteration with Parveen S/o Krishan and keeping in mind the enmity Sumit @ Justi quarrelled with Parveen and thereafter called his friends. His friend came there and started quarrelling with us. Then he along with Madan, Ajay, Jatin and Neeraj got afraid and ran towards Gurthali road on motorcycle. These other friends ran towards the bus stand on foot. Mohit was driving the motor cycle and when he reached near village Gurthali then their motorcycle ran out of petrol they stood on the road and then they were standing on the road and in meantime Sunil @ Justi, Ankit s/o Magta morpatti, Narwana, Ramesh s/o Soma @ Bobal and Ashok R/o Narwana along with 14/15 others came there on their motor cycles. Mohit and others got scared and then Jatin, Ajay and Neeraj ran away from there. Sumit & Justi S/O Salender @ Bhuriya caste Barber R/o Narwana and others started beating Mohit and Madan with sticks and rods and said that today they will kill them by taking them to KM college. Then they forcefully made them sit on the motorcycle and took us to км college, Narwana. There they caused me and Madan number of injuries to him and Madan. Sumit @ Justi by making him fall on the ground gave injury to Madan on the neck by knee. Then when they raised noise then many boys from the college gathered. On seeing them the above stated boys ran away on their motorcycles. Then the boys from the college only called the ambulance and got they admitted to Civil Hospital, Narwana. Doctors checked Madan and declared him dead. Then they gave me the first aid and referred Mohit to edical college,Police Froceeding: Today 1.6., on 19.09.2022, I was present in the police station, city Nazwana when I got an information from PB Moharr that Madan 3/0 Satyapal R/o Dansuda Kalan has been brought dead at Civil Hospital, Narwana after sustaining injuries in a fight and Mohit 8/0 Krishan R/o Danauda Kalan is Injured. Then I along with HC Sarbinder Singh 389 and SPO Rajesh Kumar 811 along with laptop and printer reached Civil Hospital on government vehicle PCR 9. Then Doctor's ruqa and MLR of injured Mohit bearing по. PK/NRW/2022/30 was received. The doctor had mentioned total 3 injuries and all are KUO BLUNT. Injury no. 1 is mentioned as Adv NCCT Head Surgeon Opinion, Injury no. 2 is mentioned as Adv X Ray Right Forearm, ortho opinion, Injury no. 3 is mentioned as Adv Face X ray Surgeon Opinion. Then I along with other officials reached mortuary, Civil Hospital, Narawana. There Uncle (Chacha) of deceased Madan namely Ramrup and other family members were present. Then Uncle (Chacha) of deceased Madan namely Ramrup after long discussions with the family got recorded the abovestatement. Then after reading, listening and considering the statement to be correct appended his Signature under the statement in Hindi. I verified the same. From the ruga received from doctor, MLR No. PK/NRW/2022/30 and statement of Ramrup offences u/s 302, 307, 323, 341, 364, 147, 149 IPC are made out. So, the same is being sent to PS City Narwana by hand through HC Sarbinder Singh 389 for registration of case. The case be registered and the number be intimated. The special report of case be prepared and sent to Illaqa Magistrate and Senior Officials. The Scene of Crime team be intimated to reach at the spot. I along with other officials are proceeding with Section 174 Cr PC of Deceased Madan. At Civil Hospital, Narwana. Sd/G Rajkumar SI. PS City Narwana. Dated

19.09.2022. At 11:55 PM. Upon receiving the above at police station through HC Sarbinder Singh 389 FIR No. 373 dated

19.09.2022 u/s 302, 307, 323, 341, 364, 147, 149 IPC was registered at PS Narwana City. Then computerised copied of FIR will be prepared and copies of special report will be sent to Illaqa Magistrate and Senior Officials. The case file along with original documents are being handed Sarbinder Singh 389, PS City over to HC Narwana for giving the same to investigating officer SI Rajkumar 190, PS City Narwana for further action'. ). C/42&42-/4( O4 5&16,. /. 21& 7&2-2-/4&' :earned counse- for the petitioner has ar,ued that the petitioner has +een fa-se-" imp-icated in the present case and the petitioner 7as named at the time of re,istration of comp-aint +" in&ured Mohit 7ho had -ater turned hosti-e.  !e su+mits that pthe petitioner has +een in custod" for a-most $ "ear and 4 months and co9accused name-"  ourav ; Ba+-u and Sunit ; Sinu have +een ,ranted +ai- +" this 'ourt vide order dated $6.21.323( passed in 'RM9M9522559 2023 and CRM-M-9623-2024 respectively. He has further argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean.  The contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is 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 48 Prosecution Witnesses, only 3 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 1 year, 5 months and 27 days. Learned   State   Counsel   on   instructions   from   the Investigating Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail but is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.  He informs the Court that in the present FIR challan stands presented on 29.07.2023 and charges stands framed on 28.08.2023.

¶4Analysis From the above case it can be culled out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient period in custody i.e. 1 year, 5 months and 27 days and similarly situated co-accused have already been granted concession of bail by this Court and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands   presented   on   29.07.2023   and   charges   stands   framed   on

36.26.323), out of (6 prosecution 7itnesses,  on-" ) P<s have +een e=amined so far 7hich is sufficient for this 'ourt to infer that the conc-usion of tria- is -ike-" to take considera+-e time and detainin, the petitioner +ehind the +ars for an indefinite period 7ou-d so-ve no purpose. .urther, re-iance can +e p-aced upon the &ud,ment of the Ape= 'ourt rendered in ?Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1 1, 7herein it has +een he-d that the ,rant of +ai- is a ,enera- ru-e and puttin, persons in &ai- or in prison or in correction home is an e=ception. Re-evant paras of the said &ud,ment is reproduced as under:9 "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.

¶3There 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 Anuradha 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.

¶4While 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 firstGtime 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.

¶5To 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 ReGInhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658

¶6The 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. KingGEmperor, 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 ageGold and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.

¶7However, 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." %herefore, to e-ucidate further, this 'ourt is conscious of the  fundamenta- -a7 that ri,ht to speed" tria- is a part of reasona+-e, fair and &ust procedure ,uaranteed under Artic-e 3$ of the 'onstitution of /ndia. %his constitutiona- ri,ht cannot +e denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Ape= court in ?!ussainara "hatoon and ors (#$) Anuradha v. !ome Se%retar&, State of 'ihar, Patna", (1(80) 1 SCC (8. 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 aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on his 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

22.08.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 212 CRM-M-39251-2024 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 22.08.2024 SHIV KARAN ALIAS SUMIT ALIAS SAM ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S.Virk, Sr. DAG, Haryana. ***