Ravinder Singh v. State Of Punjab
!"
"
!
"# $"% &'(&) *+,-.
" # $%& '(##
) )
*+
( ,& ,$ ,- .,.& # $-/ $., $01 $00 $02 $0% $2- $2$ -.,3'
+" -%0, ) # "4 5
.
/0.1 * *+
3 "NO. 684 Dated 101122 From: Anjana, Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. To, Fast Track Special Court, The Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur Subject: Registration of FIR against surety Jit Singh son of Piara Singh, Numbarder Sohan Singh son of Teja Singh, witness Ravinder Singh son of Rachpal Singh and accused Narinder Singh @ Sabhi. Memo. Whereas in case State Vs. Narinder @ Sabhi and Anr., FIR No 31 dated 10.03.2020, under Section 363, 366, 376(3), 376DA, 120B, 109 IPC and
Sec 6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Mahilpur, bail bonds and surety bonds on behalf of furnished on accused Narinder @ Sabhi were 05.07.2021 before the then Predecessor of this Court and one Jit Singh son of Piara Singh, resident of Village Sahri, Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur stood surely on behalf of accused Narinder @ Sabhi and he furnished Fard Jumabandi was identified by Nambardar Sohan Singh s/o Teja Singh Resident Hoshiarpur and witnessed by Ravinder Singh son of Rachpal Singh, resident of Chakowal Brahmna, Hoshiarpur. During the trial accused Narinder @ Sabhi absented from the court proceedings and his non bailable warrants of arrest were issued and notice to his surety was also issued. Today i.e. 09.11.
2022, Ajit Singh @ Jit Singh son of Piara Singh appeared in the court and moved an application he does not know Narinder @ Sabhi, neither he stood his surety and documents have been Impersonated in the present bail bonds. He has also attached copy of his Aadhar Card and pasted his photograph with the application. Statement of Ajit Singh @ Jit Singh has also been recorded in which he has stated that is the owner of the land shown in jamabandi attached with the surety bonds of this case. He has further stated that some unknown person has impersonated him and had stood surety for Narindor @ Sabhi in the present case He never stood surety for Narindez Sabhi in the above ted case not be known Narinder Sabhi son of Madan Lal.
He is Illiterate and only put his thumb impression and he never got issued the jamabandi attached with the surety bonds from Fard Kendar. The Aadhar Card in the name of Jit Singh attached is not his and someone has filed the same in the court while impersonating him and while preparing forged and fake documents using his name. He has seen the Aadhar Card and Identity card in the name of Sohan Singh who has signed as Lambardar of village Sahri and the photo on said Aadhar card is not of Sohan Singh who is actual Lambardar of their village. These are forged and fabricated documents.
In view of statement of Ajit Singh @ Jit Singh, the undersigned is of the opinion that Jit Singh son of Piara Singh stood surety on behalf of accused Narinder @ Sabhi by impersonating himself as Ajit Singh & Jit Singh son of Piara Singh son of Maiya and Lambardar Sohan Singh son of Teja Singh, witness Ravinder Singh son of Rachpal Singh who identified the surety and accused Narinder Singh @ Sabhi have forged the surety bonds and have cheated this court. You are hereby directed to register an FIR against Jit Singh son of Piara Singh, Lambardar Sohan Singh son of Teja Singh, witness Ravinder Singh son of Rachpal Singh and accused Narinder Singh @ Sabhi under the relevant sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2 extract of the register of Surety Bonds maintained by the Reader of this Court, are attached herewith. Further copy of application alongwith copy of Aadhar card duly pasted with photograph of Ajit Singh @ Jit Singh as well as statement suffered in the court are also attached here with. At the time of furnishing the surety bonds, the register concerned has been in the custody of Reader of this Court Sh. Amrik Singh. Hence, the undersigned authorize Sh. Amrik Singh on behalf of undersigned to depose at the time of evidence recorded during the trial of the case. Encl. As above.sd/ (Anjana) Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court Hoshiarpur."
*3.&3.(*31
3 4&-/') *) .-& 5&.(.(*3&6
6
4
5
)
)
5
4
3 4&-/') *) .-& ./.& 6 #
4
5
$ 3/'71(1 ") 4
)
$ .0 4 4
4 )
7 )
-. -- .,.$ -.
7
8
7
)
9bail is a rule and jail is an exception"
7
) 4 8
.- " +
)
" 4)
)
8 "
) 3 "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 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 firsttime 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 ReInhuman 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. KingEmperor, 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 ageold 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."
"
7 ) 4
.- " + )
8 9!"
# $% !&'() ( *( +
+ '
7
3
3
) 7 4
)
) 7
7
+ 7
)
)
4
": 4 ) + 3
7 57 4 )
8 $ "%
Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No