IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Sr. No.: 118 Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-8602 of 2025 Date of Decision: April 09, 2025 Sahil @ Sahil Naib ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab ..... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL PRESENT: - Mr. Parivartan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (Oral) 1. Relief sought The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.104 dated 12.09.2024 under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS 2023; Section 25 of Arms Act; and Sections 61(2), 249(A) of BNS 2023 added lateron, registered at Police Station, City Batala, District Batala. 2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in the FIR as under:- “Statement of Gurkirat Singh son of Kulwinder Singh resident of Bahr War Hathi Gate near Fast Gym Batala age about 28 years mobile number 8264722085 stated that I am a resident of the said address. I am is studying BA, we are two brother, Damandeep Singh who is younger to me and is about 21 years old and is preparing to go abroad after studying 10+2 class. Today at about 11 my brother Damandeep Called me on whatsapp that I was surrounded by Manpreet Singh, Rahul and Sahil near Radha Krishna Colony Batala near Silver Creek School who kept talking to me on which I took the motorcycle from home and drove towards the school at the same time when I reached near the school, I saw that two boys were arguing with my brother Damandeep Singh one boys was holding a pistol in his hand and AVIN KUMAR 2025.04.09 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CRM-M-8602 of 2025 [2] the other boy have Kirch in his hand. A boy from a vehicle parked far away said in a loud voice that Manpreet fire bullet upon him, he should not be go escape today. I saw that the boy entered the street and fired directly with his hand pistol. The fire of the pistol hit the right side of my brother's stomach. My brother fell on the ground. These boys ran away with their weapons. I can recognize them on seeing. By arranging a ride with the help of a passer-by, I brought my brother to the Civil Hospital Batala if the doctor referred us and sent us to Amritsar. On reaching Amandeep Hospital in Amritsar, the doctor declared my brother Damandeep Singh as dead and did not admit him to the hospital. We returned to Batala Civil Hospital where you met. My brother Damandeep Singh told me about these three persons that they have grudge against him. Appropriate action should be taken against the said persons. The statement was written and heard. It is correct. SD/ Gurkeerat Singh above. Verification SD/ Jasjit Singh SI Chief Officer Police Station City Batala dated 12-09-2024.” 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 he was only sitting in the car at the time of alleged incident. He further submits that he has not been attributed any injury whatsoever as the gun shot injury is attributed to co- ccused namely Manpreet Singh, therefore, the offences as incorporated in the FIR has not been made out against him. Learned counsel further submits that Co-accused namely Vimal Kumar and Navjot Singh have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the trial Court vide orders dated 09.10.2024 (Annexure P-3 and P-4, respectively). Another co-accused namely Rahul Naib AVIN KUMAR 2025.04.09 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CRM-M-8602 of 2025 [3] @ Rahul has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025 (Anexure P-5) passed in CRM-M-6913 of 2025. Notice of motion. On behalf of the State/complainant On the asking of Court, Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State. He does not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in addition thereto also failed to produce any incriminating material to necessitate the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. 4. Analysis Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 06 months and 20 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; no role has been attributed to the petitioner; co-accused namely Rahul Naib @ Rahul have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 06.02.2025 passed in CRM-M-6913-2025 (Annexure P-5); and the co-accused namely Vimal Kumar and Navjot Singh have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the trial Court vide orders dated 09.10.2024 (Annexure P-3 and P-4, respectively); the petitioner is not a habitual offender as he is not involved in any other case, as is evident from custody certificate in addition to the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands presented to Court on 10.12.2024, charge has been framed on 27.01.2025 and total 19 prosecution witnesses are cited, which is suffice for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial will take long time for which the petitioner cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite period. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court AVIN KUMAR 2025.04.09 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CRM-M-8602 of 2025 [4] 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, 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 AVIN KUMAR 2025.04.09 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CRM-M-8602 of 2025 [5] 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 AVIN KUMAR 2025.04.09 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CRM-M-8602 of 2025 [6] (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 AVIN KUMAR 2025.04.09 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CRM-M-8602 of 2025 [7] 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. RELIEF: In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on regular bail on him 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) Judge April 09, 2025 avin Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No Whether Reportable: Yes/ No AVIN KUMAR 2025.04.09 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.