CRM-M-16345-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 229 CRM-M-16345-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 29.04.2025 ANKIT ALIAS SAHIL ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG, Haryana. *** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. Prayer This petition has been filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.113 dated 19.5.2024 (P-1) registered u/s 302, 34, 120-B IPC at P.S. Rajaund District Kaithal (Annexure P-1). 2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :- ‘To, S.H.O Police Station Rajaund Sir, I request that I am Mahipal son of Dariya Ram resident Pabda Patti Roheda and work in the milk diary. We were brothers, my eldest brother Mahender and my younger brother jagpal have already died. My brother deceased Rajender was elder than me, whose children live in a rented house in village shergarh, Kaithal. Rajender was living alone in his house in village Roheda. Today on 18.05.2024, I was Anuradha 2025.04.29 07:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16345-2025 2 at kaithal, I got information through telephone at around 4:30 pm that my brother Rajender was murdered. On receiving this information, 1 came home with my nephew Abhishek son of rajender and came and saw that my brother Rajender's body was found face down in the open courtyard of the house. There were 10-12 deep marks of sharp weapon on his back, neck and head and a lot of blood is coming out of his body. Some unknown criminals have planned and murdered my brother Rajender due to some deep enmity. Postmortem of my brother Rajender's body should be conducted and strict action should be taken against criminals.’ 3. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner was even not named in the instant FIR and the complainant along with five private witnesses have turned hostile. He further submits that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. He has further argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean. Moreso, the investigation in this case is complete as challan stands presented on 23.08.2024, charges stands framed on 24.10.2024 out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only 9 PWs have been examined so far which is sufficient to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 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. Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that as per the Anuradha 2025.04.29 07:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16345-2025 3 CCTV footage, the petitioner along with co-accused person was seen going on motorcycle but when countered with specific question as to whether there was any over act attributed, learned State Counsel could not point any material in support of her submission. 4. Analysis From the above discussion, it can be culled out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 11 months and 1 day, no overt act was pointed out by learned State Counsel, antecedents of the petitioner are clean, meaning thereby he is not a habitual offender, complainant along with five private witnesses have 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, challan stands presented on 23.08.2024, charges stands framed on 24.10.2024 out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only 9 PWs have been examined so far which is sufficient to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose. 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 Anuradha 2025.04.29 07:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16345-2025 4 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 Anuradha 2025.04.29 07:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16345-2025 5 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 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.” Anuradha 2025.04.29 07:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16345-2025 6 Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the 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. 5. Relief In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail 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 29.04.2025 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Anuradha 2025.04.29 07:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document