CRM-M-22339-2025 1 209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22339-2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 02.05.2025 RITIK TOMAR ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Sudhir Rana, 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 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of Regular Bail to the petitioner in FIR No.89 dated 13.5.2024, under section 216, 307, 387, 506, 34 and 120-B of IPC, Arms 25 and 1860 Acts, 1959 (Section 216 of IPC and 25 Arms Acts added later on), registered at Police Station, City Safidon, District Jind. 2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :- ‘"TO The SHO, Police station, City Safidon. Subject: Complaint against unknown people for demanding Extortion and on refusal of paying extortion, they fired upon my Partner namely Deepak, with intention to Kill at our shop. 1. That We have Mobile shop namely " 7VK Communication" at Stadium market and my Anuradha 2025.05.02 07:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22339-2025 2 Shop No are 17 & 18 and in this shop I. Ankur Gupta Son of Ashok Gupta resident of Safidon presently residing in. Model Town, Virat Nagar Panipat, and I am partner with Deepak son of Rajender Prasad of Sadfion. 2. That I have received Whatsapp call Mobile Number 447309801064 on 30.3.2024 for extortion, on my Mobile No 9896244211, and I have taken this call lightly and no action was taken by me. But on next day i.e. 1.4.2024, I received the WhatsApp call from same mobile number and I blocked that number. That again on 3.4.2024. third time, I have received call from Mobile no. 37256187485, and again they demanded the extortion and they threatened me to face the dire and also threatened to kill us and even again we had this call. 3. That today i.e. 13.5.2024 around 5.35 PM. Deepak was standing outside and I was working inside the shop and then, I saw three unknown people coming on motorcycle with muffled faces and those people fired towards the Shop and Deepak escaped from the firing. Then firing, those unknown persons escaped towards new Bus Stand while waving their pistols in air. I have full Doubt that this attack was done by same persons who used to give threat from above mentioned Mobile numbers for Extortion on my mobile phone. That immediately after the incident 1 have informed the Police and police also came on the spot. Thus, it is humbly prayed before you Sir, that strict legal may kindly be taken against the unknown people and protect our life and property Sd/- Applicant Ankur Gupta son of Ashok Gupta, resident of Safidon presently residing in Model Town Virat Nagar, Panipat." 3. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused. He further submits that the only allegation qua the present petitioner is that he was carrying pistol, however no specific injury has been attributed to him. He has further Anuradha 2025.05.02 07:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22339-2025 3 argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean. He submits that similarly situated co-accused namely Ajay Rana and Saurabh Panwar have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2025 and 21.01.2025 passed in CRM-M-65133-2024 (Annexure-3) and CRM-M-2097-2025 (Annexure P-5). Moreso, the investigation in this case is complete as challan stands presented on 15.07.2024 charges stands framed on 01.04.2025 out of 16 prosecution witnesses, none has 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 the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in other FIR also, moreso, country made pistol with one live and one empty cartridge has been recovered from him, although admit that it is a case of no injury. 4. Analysis From the above discussion, it can be culled out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 11 months and 9 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, it is a case of no injury, and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, Anuradha 2025.05.02 07:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22339-2025 4 whereas in the instant case, challan stands presented on 15.07.2024 charges stands framed on 01.04.2025 out of 16 prosecution witnesses, none has 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 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 Anuradha 2025.05.02 07:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22339-2025 5 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 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 Anuradha 2025.05.02 07:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22339-2025 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 “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, SLP (Crl.) No.8523/2024. Relevant paras of the said judgment reads as under:- “7. An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Anuradha 2025.05.02 07:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22339-2025 7 8. It is not for nothing the Author Oscar Wilde in “The Ballad of Reading Gaol”, wrote the following poignant lines while being incarcerated: “I know not whether Laws be right, Or whether Laws be wrong; All that we know who be in jail Is that the wall is strong; And that each day is like a year, A year whose days are long.” 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 02.05.2025 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Anuradha 2025.05.02 07:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document