CRM-M-18933-2025 -1- 222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18933-2025 DECIDED ON: 21.04.2025 KARANJIT SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Tanvir Singh Attariwala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab. 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. 306 dated 07.09.2004 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 307, 326, 324, 452, 323, 341, 427, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Banga, District SBS Nagar. 2. Brief facts of the present case unfolds as under:- “The FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by complainant- Kulvir Singh, wherein he stated that on 06.09.2004, at about 10:00 PM, he was going to his house from Banga along with his son Manvir Singh on car make 'Zen' bearing registration No.PB-32-B-0577. When they reached near Village Dahan, then Gurdeep Singh met them, who disclosed them that some persons had inflicted injuries to their aunt- Gurdial Kaur and she had to be admitted in hospital whereupon he POONAM NEGI 2025.04.21 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18933-2025 -2- (complainant) took Gurdial Kaur to the hospital whilst sent his son with Gurdeep Singh on scooter. He further stated that at about 10:30 PM, when he was sitting in the Verandah, Hirdejit Singh and applicant/accused- Karanjitt Singh armed with swords along with Kaka armed with gandassi came there on 'Lancer' car driven by Pala. Hirdejit Singh raised lalkara that he should not go scot-free. All the afore-stated persons attacked and inflicted numerous grievous injuries with their respective weapons on his person with an intention to kill him. The main cause of the alleged occurrence was that on earlier occasion, Hirdejit Singh also inflicted injuries to the son of Tarsem Singh qua which case was registered against him and he (complainant) was helping Tarsem Singh in the said case. On the basis of aforesaid statement and medico-legal report of complainant, present FIR was registered against Hirdejit Singh, Sukhwinder Singh @ Kaka and applicant- Karanjit Singh.” 3. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the injury attributed to the petitioner is kirpan blow which hit the ankle of the right leg and wrist of the complainant as well as another blow with reverse side of kirpan which hit the right elbow of the complainant. He further contends that according to the MLR, nature of injuries have been declared grievous or simple in nature but none of the injury has been declared dangerous to life which could attract Section 307 IPC and apparently there is strong probability of no conviction on that account atleast before the trial Court. He further contends that a compromise dated 17.06.2024 (Annexure P-11) has been entered into between the petitioner and the complainant. It has been POONAM NEGI 2025.04.21 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18933-2025 -3- further asserted that the conviction granted to the co-accused Hirdayjit Singh stands set aside by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed in CRA-S-888-SB-2011. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is a man of clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. On behalf of the State/complainant On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record. He along with Mr. Vansh Chawla, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his Power of Attorney, which is taken on record, seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the injury attributed to the petitioner is kirpan blow which hit the ankle of the right leg and wrist of the complainant as well as another blow with reverse side of kirpan which hit the right elbow of the complainant. 4. Analysis Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 02 months and 20 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; according to the MLR, nature of injuries have been declared grievous or simple in nature but none of the injury has been declared dangerous to life which could attract Section 307 IPC and apparently there is strong probability of no conviction on that account atleast before the trial Court and the fact that a compromise dated 17.06.2024 (Annexure P-11) has been entered into between the petitioner and the complainant as well as the fact that the conviction granted to the co-accused Hirdayjit Singh stands set aside by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed in CRA-S-888- SB-2011. POONAM NEGI 2025.04.21 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18933-2025 -4- Also considering the fact that 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 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 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. POONAM NEGI 2025.04.21 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18933-2025 -5- 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 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 POONAM NEGI 2025.04.21 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18933-2025 -6- 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 should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the POONAM NEGI 2025.04.21 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18933-2025 -7- 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) 21.04.2025 JUDGE Poonam Negi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No POONAM NEGI 2025.04.21 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document