255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40700-2025 Date of decision: 04.08.2025 AMIT ALIAS MITTU ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Khushwant Saharan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG, Haryana. **** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483 BNSS seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.279 dated 17.06.2021, under Sections 120-B, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 452, 506 of IPC (Section 25 of Arms Act added later on) registered at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak. 2. Contentions: On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that PW-3-complainant has deposed before the learned trial Court as under : “I have seen the accused persons namely Pawan @ Ramlu, Sandeep, Bala, Sumit and Kuldeep who are present in Court in person and accused Vikas @ Mattri, Amit @ Mittu son of Rajender, Amit son of Baljeet and I akshay who are present through video conferencing are not those accused persons who inflicted bullet injuries to Anesh, Sandeep and Rohit. At this stage, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has MANISHA 2025.08.05 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40700-2025 2 requested that the witness is suppressing some material facts of this case and she may be declared hostile and allowed to cross-examine her. Heard and allowed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the instant petition, refers to the deposition of the complainant dated 05.04.2025, wherein, the complainant has turned hostile along with other eye witnesses. As such, sound probability of the acquittal of the petitioner is there. He further argued that the petitioner is in custody since 05.09.2021, whereas, the investigation stands completed and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. On behalf of the State On the other hand, learned State Counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 03 years, 10 months, 27 days. Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the petitioner is involved in an offence of grave nature. 3. Analysis In the present case, the complainant has turned hostile and the petitioner has already suffered incarceration of 03 years, 10 months, 27 days added with the fact that challan stands presented on 26.11.2021 and after framing of charges on 06.03.20255, out of total 59 witnesses, only 04 has been examined, meaning thereby, conclusion of trial shall take sufficient time, therefore, this Court is of the view that 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, MANISHA 2025.08.05 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40700-2025 3 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. 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 MANISHA 2025.08.05 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40700-2025 4 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, (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. MANISHA 2025.08.05 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40700-2025 5 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; 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.” MANISHA 2025.08.05 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40700-2025 6 4. 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) August 04, 2025 JUDGE manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No MANISHA 2025.08.05 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document