CRM-M-12054-2025 1 221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12054-2025 Date of Decision: 28.04.2025 SHAHNEWAJ ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG, Haryana. 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. 886 dated 17.11.2021 under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Quilla Panipat, District Panipat, Haryana. 2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in the FIR as under:- “Sir, I am Raju Gupta, S/O Ram Babu, a R/O Ward No. 11. Chawla Colony, Panipat. On 17.11.21, around 7 PM, I visited my brother Sanju Gupta's house in Jagdish Nagar, Panipat. At that time, Sokin, S/O Salim, a R/O Kabul Bagh, Kutani Road, Panipat, came running to me. shouting that he and my brother Sanju Gupta were on their way to Anju's house on his Splendor bike (HR06AP 3867). Sokin was driving while Sanju was sitting behind him. When they reachednear Rakesh Chugh's factory, close to Pehalwan Wali Gali from Pehalwan Chowk, Kutani Road, KUMUD VERMA 2025.04.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-12054-2025 2 Panipat, two young men wearing helmets approached them from behind on a bike. They hit their bike from behind, causing them to fall. Immediately, the assailants opened fire, shooting 2-3 bullets at Sanju and also firing at Sokin. I ran forward and narrowly escaped being shot. Tragically, my brother Sanju Gupta was killed by the gunshots fired by the two unknown assailants. I request that strict legal action be taken against these unknown individuals, and I seek justice for my brother's death. (Signed) Raju Gupta, S/O Ram Babu, R/O Ward No. 11, Chawla Colony, Panipat. Date: 17.11.21. Contact: 8529691894. Based on this complaint, on 17.11.21, the Police Station received a call about a person being shot at Pehalwan Wali Gali, off Pehalwan Chowk, Kutani Road. INSP/SHO, along with SI Ajmer (123), Head Constable Virendra Kumar (696), ESI Ramesh (488), and driver SPO Sonu (115) in the government vehicle (HR06AV 0200), immediately reached the crime scene. There, they met Raju Gupta, who submitted the written complaint. Upon reviewing the complaint, the crime was found to be under Section 302/34 IPC and 25-54-59. A. Act. Consequently, a case was registered, and ESI Ramesh Kumar was assigned to Arsal Police Station (488) to handle the investigation. The regular case number was recorded, and a special report was forwarded to the Area Magistrate and senior officers. The FSL team was also called to the scene. INSP/SHO Mahipal, along with his officers and the plaintiff, began investigating the case at Pehalwan Wali Gali, Pehalwan Chowk, Kutani Road, Panipat, on 17.11.21. FIR No. 886, dated 17.11.21, under Section 302/34 IPC and 25-54-59 A. Act, was officially registered at Police Station Quilla, Panipat. The FIR was processed and verified through the police computer system. A copy of the original complaint has been forwarded to the investigating officer, while the remaining FIR copies are being sent as a special report to the Area Magistrate and senior officers under Section 1071, Lt. Mohar (05). 3. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR and is in custody since KUMUD VERMA 2025.04.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-12054-2025 3 23.02.2022. He further states that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR neither any recovery has been effected from him and the petitioner is not attributed any active role or overt act. On behalf of the State On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record. She seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that petitioner is allegedly involved in the providing weapons for the murder and helped in destroying the evidence after the crime. She further submits that two country made pistols (315 bore) used in the crime have been recovered from the petitioner and an empty shell which was thrown into the drain i.e. he also tried to destroy the evidence. It is also argued that the petitioner is involved in five other cases and for this reason prays for dismissal of the instant petition. 4. Analysis Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 03 years and 02 months for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; in addition to the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands presented to Court on 12.04.2022, charges have been framed on 13.10.2022 and out of total 24 prosecution witnesses only 06 have been examined, 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. KUMUD VERMA 2025.04.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-12054-2025 4 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, 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 KUMUD VERMA 2025.04.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-12054-2025 5 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 (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 KUMUD VERMA 2025.04.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-12054-2025 6 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 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 KUMUD VERMA 2025.04.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-12054-2025 7 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 land the petitioner in a situation of denial of concession of bail. 5. D ECISION: In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby 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 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 28.04.2025 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No KUMUD VERMA 2025.04.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh