CRM-M-32099-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 CRM-M-32099-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 19.06.2025 RAJINDER SINGH ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. *** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. Prayer This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking the concession of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR No. 36 dated 30.03.2025 under Sections 108, 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS registered at Police Station Sudhar District Ludhiana. 2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :- ‘Statement of Ranjit Singh son of Harbans Singh son of Kehar Singh, resident of Near Baba Rodu Bas Stand, Village Mullanpur, Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana, aged about 50 years, Mobile No.87278-99210, stated that I am resident of afore mentioned address and I am working at Mullanpur as truck driver. My marriage was solemnized on 24.02.1996 with Sinderpal Kaurdaughter of Sohan Singh, resident of Mandiani, Police Station Dakha and out of the said wedlock, two sons were bom. Elder is Pawanpreet Singh, aged about 27 years and younger to him is Anuradha 2025.06.19 06:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32099-2025 2 Lovpreet Singh, aged 25 years. My elder son Pawanpreet Singh doing the duty as bouncer with Principal Madam at Indo Canadian School, Ladhia and about 10 years ago my son was doing duty as bouncer with singers. My son had interaction with Kirandeep Kaur daughter of Rajinder Singh alias Raja resident of Halwara, Police Station Sudhar and thereafter my son and Kirandeep Kaur came in relationship. Kirandeep Kaur usually used to visit our house. Due to which, my sonPawanpreet Singh was in deep love with Kirandeep Kaur and my son Pawanpreet Singh and Kirandeep Kaur promised to marry with each other. Even both the sistersof Kirandeep Kaur used to meet with Pawanpreet Singh. lam having their photographs, which will be producedbefore you if required. Everything was going smoothly, butour villager Kuldeep Singh Patwari, who was relative ofKirandeep Kaur, some other unknown persons hadintentionally given the wrong report to the parents ofKirandeep Kaur about my son Pawanpreet Singh. Thereafter, Kirandeep Kaur and her parents have refused to marry Kirandeep Kaur with my son Pawanpreet Singh and also talked about our caste that we cannot perform the marriage of the girl with lower caste boy (Churian de Munde). Even then, about one week ago, we had gone to house of Kirandeep Kaur at village Halwara, where family of Kirandeep Kaur, her father Rajinder Singh, brother Gurcharan Singh alias Channa, mother of Kirandeep Kaur and her sisters Deep and Babu did not talk to us and further insulted us and asked us to go from outside of their house. Due to this Pawanpreet Singh became sad and took it to the heart. We tried to convince our son and after hearing us he even understood and made his mind. But on 27.03.2025 brother of Kirandeep Kaur, Gurcharan Singh alla Channa called our son and asked him to come alone tomorrow on 28.03.2025 we will sit and talk about your marriage. Then on 28.03.2024 at around 5:00 pm Gurinder Singh alias Gora called my son Lovepreet Singh that your brother had consumed poison at Village Halwara. Then my son Lovepreet Singh and son of my brother Harman immediately went to village Halwara where on their way at Chopra Nursing home they met Anuradha 2025.06.19 06:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32099-2025 3 Pawanpreet Singh alongwith Sarpanch of villaheHalwara Sukhwinder Singh and father of Girl, Rajinder Singh and some unknown persons. They were taking my son to Chopra Nursing Home for treatment. Where Sarpanch Sukhwinder Singh gave threat to my younger son Lovepreet Singh by saying that if your brother Pawanpreet Singh remain alive, then we will again beat him. Myson remained admitted in D.M.C. Hospital and at D.M.C.Hospital Ludhiana, I made video on the phone of our known Sukhwinder Singh alias Lucky about the incident occurred with my son and from where due to serious condition of my son, he was referred to Government Hospital Sector 32, Chandigarh on 29.03.2025 and on 30.03.2025, my son died during treatment at Government Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. The persons namely Kirandeep Kaur, Kirandeep Kaur's father Rajinder Singh, brother Gurcharan Singh alias Channa, Kirandeep Kaur's mother and sisters Deep and Babbu, Kuldeep Singh Patwari and Sarpanch Sukhwinder Singh Village Halwara have harassed mentally by giving threatening to him have forced him to consume poisonous medicine and my son Pawanpreet Singh had died due to pain of poisonous medicine, so strict to strict legal action be taken against the above said persons and justice be provided to me. I have got recorded my statement in the presence of my son Lovepreet Singh before you, heard, read over, is correct.Sd/- Ranjit Singh, identified by Sd/-Lovepreet Singh.’ 3. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that no overt act and provocation was ever made by the petitioner. He further submits the deceased visited the house of the petitioner who is father of the girl and as per the allegations, he invoked the deceased for suicide but that mere allegations of either direct or indirect harassment would not be sufficient in order to fulfil necessary ingredients of Section 108 BNS. He Anuradha 2025.06.19 06:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32099-2025 4 points out that no suicide note was recovered from the deceased. He has further argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean. He submits that co-accused namely Kuldeep Singh has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2025 passed in CRM-M- 21605-2025 (Annexure P-3). Moreso, the investigation in this case is complete as challan stands presented on 04.06.2025 charges are yet to be framed and total 13 PWs have been 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 deceased committed suicide on account of mental harassment caused by the petitioner and his family members. 4. Analysis From the above discussion, it can be culled out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 2 months and 13 days; similarly situated co-accused has already been granted concession of bail by this Court; no suicide note was recovered; necessary ingredients of Section 108 BNS are not fulfilled; antecedents of the petitioner are clean, meaning thereby he is not a habitual offender, 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 04.06.2025 Anuradha 2025.06.19 06:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32099-2025 5 charges are yet to be framed and total 13 PWs have been 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 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 Anuradha 2025.06.19 06:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32099-2025 6 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 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, Anuradha 2025.06.19 06:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32099-2025 7 (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; Anuradha 2025.06.19 06:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32099-2025 8 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 19.06.2025 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Anuradha 2025.06.19 06:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document