CRM-M-32085-2025 (O&M) 1 212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32085-2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION :16.06.2025 SANJEEV .......PETITIONER(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Shivam Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana. *** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. Prayer This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of Regular bail to the petitioner, in pending trial in case bearing FIR No. 15 dated 11.01.2025 sections u/s 115, 118(1), 351(3), 118(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Indri, District Karnal. (Annexure P-1). 2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :- ‘Copy of the complaint is as follows: statement of unknown Arvinder Kumar, son of Shri Satpal, resident of Ward No. 8, Indri, age 35 years, mobile no. 9518101003. He stated that I am resident of the above-mentioned address. On date 05-01-2025 my uncle Anuradha 2025.06.16 06:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32085-2025 (O&M) 2 Jaspal phoned that "Abhi is still not agreeing, he is again misbehaving." I and my uncle Jaspal, to make him understand, reached his house and called out because the door of his house was closed. At that time Abhi was not at home. His family members said that when Abhi comes we will call you and we will talk face to face. At about 8:30 PM I and my uncle Jaspal went to his house; they were fully prepared. Both of us were standing in the lane near his door and began talking; on the matter about the boy they started arguing. All those family members-namely Nitish son of Sohan Lal, Abhi alias Golu son of Sohan Lal, Aman and Raman sons of Kala, Nitish's wife, Sanjeev and Sanjeev's wife, Meena- assaulted me and uncle Jaspal with gandasi, sticks, lathi, and slaps and punches, causing deep injuries. I lost consciousness and fell down unconscious. Later I came to know that my elder uncle's son Ravi and uncle's son Prince came; they too were beaten by them. Upon Ravi and others arriving, those persons took their gandasi and sticks and went into their house. I was taken to Government Hospital Indri for treatment; from there I was referred to Kalpana Chawla; then brought to Kalpana Chawla, from there referred for treatment to a higher centre; I was admitted to Virk Hospital, and my uncle Jaspal was admitted to Prabhu Hospital Karnal. Today I am fully conscious; I have got my statement written in Virk Hospital. 1 request that legal action be taken against all of them.’ 3. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the complainant, along with his uncle, armed with weapons such as gandasi, lathi, and danda, had unlawfully entered the house of Abhishek, which clearly indicates that the complainant was the aggressor in the incident. It is further submitted that during the course of the occurrence, accused Abhilash and Abhishek sustained Anuradha 2025.06.16 06:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32085-2025 (O&M) 3 serious injuries, and it was only in exercise of the right of private defence that injuries were inflicted upon the complainant. Learned counsel has additionally argued that petitioner Sanjeev had no active role in the incident. He had merely gone to the residence of accused Abhishek and assisted in taking the injured to the hospital. It is alleged that due to this act alone, and out of sheer vendetta, the complainant has falsely named Sanjeev as an aggressor in the present FIR. 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 20.05.2025, charges are yet to be framed and total 9 prosecution witnesses are cited, 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 along with co-accused caused serious injuries to complainant and his uncle but is not in a position to point out specific role of the petitioner and the weapon used by him. 4. Analysis From the above discussion, it can be culled out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 2 months and 10 days, antecedents of the petitioner are clean, meaning thereby he is not a habitual offender, no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner or Anuradha 2025.06.16 06:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32085-2025 (O&M) 4 the weapon used by him, 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 20.05.2025, charges are yet to be framed and total 9 prosecution witnesses are cited, 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 Anuradha 2025.06.16 06:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32085-2025 (O&M) 5 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 Anuradha 2025.06.16 06:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32085-2025 (O&M) 6 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, 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 Anuradha 2025.06.16 06:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32085-2025 (O&M) 7 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.” 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 16.06.2025 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Anuradha 2025.06.16 06:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document