CRM-M-30178-2025 (O&M) 218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30178-2025 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 31.07.2025 JUDGEJEET SINGH ALIAS JUDGE .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL. Present: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Verma, Sr. DAG, Punjab SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. Prayer This is a petition seeking regular bail in FIR No.153, dated 12.10.2024, under Sections 110, 3(5), 61(2), 324(4) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25, and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Passiana, District Patiala. Affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Yadav, IPS, Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh has been filed in compliance of order dated 10.07.2025, calling upon the information as to what steps are being taken by the State on account of submission of incorrect affidavit before this Court by an officer holding the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and to sensitize all the Jail Superintendents and other concerned officials regarding the importance of filing responses by way of affidavit. In terms of the said affidavit, the following has been stated: REENA 2025.07.31 06:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30178-2025 (O&M) “4. That it is humbly submitted that filing of inaccurate, incomplete or irrelevant information without cross verifications of facts tend to clog the judicial system, thereby causing unnecessary delay in dispensation of justice. 5. That in view of the sensitivity of the matter, the deponent has issued a Circular No. 15 of 2025, Dated 29.07.2025 to all the field units/other Wings with the certain directions. The relevant directions mentioned in the circular are reproduced here for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court:- "4. A greater accountability is expected from the officers who sign the above documents for filing before the Hon'ble High Court. There is no place for any excuse that the reply/ affidavit/ custody certificate/Status Report/Compliance Report was got prepared by the junior officials and the supervisory/senior officer had only put his signatures on the document placed before him. It is the duty of the supervisory/senior officer who sign the document to ensure that it contains accurate, complete and relevant information, which has been cross verified with the official records so that such situation does not arise. 5. In view of above, it is hereby directed that the heads of all field units/other Wings shall personally look into the matter and ensure that the reply/ affidavit/ custody certificate/ Status Report/ Compliance Report is signed by the concerned supervisory/senior officer only after cross verification of facts with the official record. The heads of all field units/other Wings shall ensure due diligence and employ adequate resources available at their disposal to ensure legal and factual accuracy in the documents filed before Hon'ble High Court. 6. Further, all officers/officials working under your supervision and jurisdiction shall be sensitized about necessity of filing of replies/ affidavits/ custody certificates/ Status Reports/ Compliance Reports before the Hon'ble High Court with accurate, complete and relevant information only after cross REENA 2025.07.31 06:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30178-2025 (O&M) verification of facts and contents of the aforesaid documents before submission on oath to the Hon'ble High Court, so that such instance is not repeated in future. 7.Any default shall entail strict departmental action." In the light of the above, since the Director General of Police, Punjab has taken concrete steps by circulating order No. 15 of 2025 sensitizing all the Jail Superintendents and other concerned officials regarding the importance of furnishing accurate, complete and relevant information before the Court, no further indulgence is required to be made at this stage. 2. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the statement of the complainant wherein it has been alleged that one Manpreet Singh alias Mani had fired shot on him at the instance of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration of 07 months and 22 days, therefore, prays for grant of regular bail. O n 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. According to the custody certificate, the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 07 months and 22 days and he is involved in other FIRs as well. 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 FIRs but is not in a position to controvert the REENA 2025.07.31 06:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30178-2025 (O&M) submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Analysis From the above discussion, it can be culled out that the petitioner has not been attributed any specific injury and has already suffered sufficient incarceration of 07 months and 22 days. 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 27.02.2025, charges stands framed on 28.03.2025, out of 25 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far which is sufficient for this Court 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 REENA 2025.07.31 06:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30178-2025 (O&M) 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 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 REENA 2025.07.31 06:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30178-2025 (O&M) 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.” 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, REENA 2025.07.31 06:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30178-2025 (O&M) 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; 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 REENA 2025.07.31 06:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-30178-2025 (O&M) cases/convictions in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the concession of bail. 4. 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) 31.07.2025 JUDGE reena Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No REENA 2025.07.31 06:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh