Sumit @ Justi v. State of Haryana

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

¶1Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of the BNSS, 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, 302, 307, 323, 341, 364, of the IPC, 1860 (Sections 216 and 325 IPC added and Section 307 IPC deleted later on) 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 sister. We all reside in our fields of Danauda to Bhikhewala Anuradha Road. My brother Satyawan and my sister are married. My CRM-M-52881-2024 2 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 CRM-M-52881-2024 3 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, CRM-M-52881-2024 4 147, 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-20!20+-2# O2 3!/4*, -, 0/! 5!0+0+-2!" 9earned co&nsel for the  petitioner has ar,&ed that the petitioner has *een falsel" implicated in the present case and there is &ne:plained dela" of $$ ho&rs in lod,in, the -./.  !e s&*mits that the complainant and the inj&red e"e 6itness 6ho have alread" *een e:amined have t&rned hostile and have not s&pported the case of the prosec&tion d&rin, the co&rse of the trial 6herein o&t of '( P;s onl" ) P;s have *een e:amined, meanin, there*" concl&sion of trial 6o&ld ta+e lon, time. !e has f&rther ar,&ed that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean and co8acc&sed namel"  a&rav < Ba*l& and S&mi < Sin&, Shiv =aran < S&mit < Sam, Sahil and /ah&l < /amesh, Manav and Pardeep < >**o have alread" *een ,ranted concession of re,&lar *ail *" this Co&rt vide orders dated $(.20.323', 33.2(.323', 30.2(.323' passed in C/M8M8Anuradha CRM-M-52881-2024 5 50055-2023, CRM-M-9623-2024, CRM-M-39251-2024, CRM-M-38853-2024, CRM-M-40099-2024 and CRM-M-42887-2023. 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, 10 months and 28 days. Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the allegations levelled upon the petitioner are grave as he was a part of unlawful assembly and committed murder of the deceased by causing injuries 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 challans stand presented on 23.12.2022, 16.03.2023 and 29.07.2023 and charges stands framed on 28.08.2023.

¶4Analysis Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 1 year, 10 months and 28 days, similarly situated co-accused have already been granted concession of bail  by this  Court,  antecedents of  the petitioner are clean, meaning thereby he is not a habitual offender, moreso, the injured who was eye witness has turned hostile 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, charges stands framed on 28.08.2023 out of 48 prosecution witnesses,  only 3 PWs have been examined so far which is sufficient for CRM-M-52881-2024 6 this Co&rt to infer that the concl&sion of trial is li+el" to ta+e considera*le time and therefore, detainin, the petitioner *ehind the *ars for an indefinite period 6o&ld solve no p&rpose. /eliance can *e placed &pon the j&d,ment of the Ape: Co&rt rendered in ?Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1 1, 6herein it has *een held that the ,rant of *ail is a ,eneral r&le and p&ttin, persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an e:ception. /elevant paras of the said j&d,ment is reprod&ced as &nder:8 "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 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 Anuradha investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity CRM-M-52881-2024 7 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, Anuradha (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back CRM-M-52881-2024 8 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 el&cidate f&rther, this Co&rt is conscio&s of the f&ndamental principle of la6 that ri,ht to speed" trial is a part of reasona*le, fair and j&st proced&re enshrined &nder Article 3$ of the Constit&tion of .ndia. %his constit&tional ri,ht cannot *e denied to the acc&sed as is the mandate of the Ape: co&rt in ?!ussainara "hatoon and ors (#$) v. !ome Se%retar&, State of 'ihar, Patna", (1(80) 1 SCC (8. Besides this, reference can *e dra6n &pon that pre8conviction period of the &nder8trials sho&ld *e as short as possi*le +eepin, in vie6 the nat&re of acc&sation and the severit" of p&nishment in case of conviction and the  nat&re  of  s&pportin,  evidence,  reasona*le  apprehension  of tamperin, 6ith the 6itness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

5. D!7+#+-2: .n vie6 of the aforesaid disc&ssions made hereina*ove, the petitioner is directed to *e released on re,&lar *ail on his f&rnishin, *ail and s&ret" *onds to the satisfaction of the trial Co&rt@D&t" Ma,istrate, CRM-M-52881-2024 9 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

29.10.2024

CRM-M-52881-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208 CRM-M-52881-2024 DATE OF DECISION: 29.10.2024 SUMIT @ JUSTI ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr.Baljeet Nain , Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana. ***