CRM-M-27927-2025 -1- 212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27927-2025 DECIDED ON: 26.05.2025 MANISH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG Haryana SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. Prayer The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the 2nd time under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.80 dated 09.04.2024 under Sections 307, 323, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 379-B and 201 of IPC has been added later on), registered at Police Station Madlauda, Panipat, (Annexure P-1). 2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in the FIR as under:- “ To, the Incharge Police outpost Urlana Kalan Panipat, It is requested that I vansraj S/o Krishan a resident of Village Seenk and working as labourer. That on 08.04.2024, at about 11.00 pm, I was present at my MEENU 2025.05.26 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27927-2025 -2- house when Nikhil called me outside. He bring me to his fields on his motor-cycle make Platina, where 1 met with Manish son of Surender, Aman son of Leelu and Sahil son of Tejbir, all residents of village Seenk. Thereafter, all the four persons used to beat me and they also hit butt of the pistol on my head, due to which I sustained head injury. They also abused me and snatched my mobile phone make Realme Note ZO 20. Thereafter, Manish, Aman and Sahil took him on Platina motorcycle to Mehta river bridge and there, all of them fired shots from their pistol on my back with intention to kill me and they were saying that they would also kill my friend Sumit alias Kala and thereafter, they fled away from the spot by shooting me one by one. After about 30 minutes, 1 regained consciousness. I washed my hands and feet and drank water in the river and then I came to a liquor shop on foot and raised alarm, upon which Sumit, owner of the dhaba (roadside restaurant) came there and after borrowing his mobile phone, I informed my uncle Sanjay and then I alongwith my uncle Sanjay gone to the hospital of Dr. Nafe situated at Ahar Chowk in a private vehicle from where my uncle Sanjay and friend Rahul son of Sunehra took me to PGI Rohtak for treatment. A complaint has been given to you at PGI Rohtak hospital. Take legal action against the said four.” 3. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as there is no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. He further submits that investigation has already been concluded and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody as he is in custody since 06.05.2024. The attention of this Court has been drawn to an order dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) vide which co-accused Sahil has already been granted the concession of bail. 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 MEENU 2025.05.26 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27927-2025 -3- dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner fired to kill the complainant and had fired shots, which hit his back. Additionally, she submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in other cases. 4. Analysis Considering the facts that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration of 1 year, 15 days; co-accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) added with the fact that investigation is complete, charges have been framed on 08.11.2024 and total 24 prosecution witnesses have been cited by the prosecution out of which only 02 have been examined. This Court is sanguine of the fact that conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for uncertain period, wherein “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” and it would also violate the principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been time and again discussed by this Court, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 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. MEENU 2025.05.26 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27927-2025 -4- 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 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 MEENU 2025.05.26 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27927-2025 -5- 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. 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; MEENU 2025.05.26 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27927-2025 -6- 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.” 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 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. Relief : In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on regular bail on 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) 26.05.2025 JUDGE Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MEENU 2025.05.26 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document