Kulbir Singh Alias Kulvir Singh v. State Of Punjab



















  
  

  
  

!"

#$ %"&'('#)* + +   + ,- . -.

,-/ .

++++"!'!'#)"0 /"0(1(

.  

+++"(2#)%")!

+

 ,

++++"!'!'#)"0 /"0(1(

.  

+++"(2#)%")!

+

 .

++++"!'!'#)"0 /"0(1(

.  

+++"(2#)%")!

* 3- + .
 ,-  4 


   
  





  !!
"


#! !!


$
$%
 


 
$%
 






& !!

' 
$ 
 


(  



#! !!



) *

$% +

,-  4+ +50 67

!



















'

(




  $,


$

+,
 ,

,$ 
+ 

 
-'

.

 
!#  !!
$

#/

'
,


 

 $ 0

* 

+,
( +
+1
((

 (
  *
$
,

 $

+1
 1

 
 
2 & !! 


$

,
 
0$1
$


$+
0

* 
0

*
 
+


+ 



 

3
 (

 *
 

1


 (
 
+
$



$

#

)
,


 


$+(
( 
+1
  $


 



 

,
 
inter se   +




 

$
,

'

 
( 

$
,
 
((
$

!#  !!

3

0 ( % $




& !! 


, 1



 

$
,

4$+
,
5
4$
,




 

!! 




(  
$

0 ( %
4 $
 
6 ,
,
 


#! !! 



(  
$

0 ( %
4 $
--.

.   3
$
,1
 


(


( 
( 
+1 
) %
,


$ (
,


 

+

 

$
,

3
 
7 


( 
 

$

"Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and i am posted in Electricity Department as Lineman. We were two brothers. I am the eldest and Surinder Singh, aged about 35 years was younger to

#

















me. We both brothers are married and were living separately in Village Naudharani. The marriage of my brother Surinder Singh was solemnized about 4 years ago with Dashanjit Kaur daughter of Daljit Singh, resident of Ukmi Daundal, P.S. Malaud, District Ludhiana but there is no child from the said wedlock, About 7 months ago, he went in foreign country at Iran in relation to some work and business. On 14.01.2024, my mother Ranjit Kaur expired and on 19.01.2024, there was ceremony of Akhand Path/Bhog and in relation to the same, my brother reached here in the village on 16.01.2024 from foreign country. He wanted to go abroad back after attending the Bhog ceremony but his wife Dashanjit Kaur and in:laws family were restraining him to go abroad due to the same my brother was living in tension. Yesterday, i.e. on 22.01.

2024 this issue was discussed in village Naudharani at Panchayati level. During the talks in this regard, his father:in:law Daljit Singh and maternal father:in:law Jang Singh argued with my brother and they mounted pressure upon him while restraining him to go foreign country and due to the same my brother became more tensed. Today, my brother Surinder Singh went out from the house at about 12.00 P.M. Thereafter, at about 4.00 Ρ.Μ. noon time) Sandeep Singh who is son of my uncle disclosed me through his mobile number 97812:36376 at my M. No. 96466:9342 that our brother Surinder Singh has committed suicide by hanging him from the tree near the drain of Adamwal Village and he is still hanging with the tree.

Upon which, I along with my cousin Harpreet Singh and Bharpoor Singh, residents of Naudharani mached at the spot, where the number of passersby were assembled. With the help of the passersby, the dead body of my brother was removed from tree and a vehicle was arranged and then we reached Civil Hospital, Malerkotla where the Doctor in Emergency examined my brother and declared him as dead.



















unnecessarily and they used to restrain him from going in foreign country. Due to the same and the harassment caused to him by aforesaid persons, my brother Surinder Singh has committed suicide by hanging himself from the tree and in this way he has finished his life. Strict legal action be taken against them. I have got recorded my statement to you, I have heard and read it, the same is correct. The said statement was endorsed by Harpreet Singh son of Bharpoor Singh, resident of Naudharani.

....

 -

.-    3
 
$





*,


 + 7 

 
( 

,
$+(

      

                

 

    

  



      "             



# $ !  

   

  

%&'$



 

  



!

   



  '     

  



(   

    

  

'

 # 

#!



     



,168'0 .')9:

;

,16<'0 .')9:

2"!'!'#)"0 ')

)* +  ,!'    

 ')  - .      

  //%0%/001
!  

 * 

 2*

'



 3
    /!33) +  5!$ *  *      

'    #  6           

* 



 # #  7

8# !*

!    9



















:

30&2"001
;

6! /13
 4!

  

 %< !



$

 &'!"% ') !:"

$') 6 0"2#0!'

# 6*    3 =>4:47?9?;:?);? 4=:?9;:) 9;:;: /


 

 
 
$



+1
 
$ 

(  
 
$1


, 

,$ 
+ 


 

$+(
 

 



,



$
0 %

,
 

 

$
,

$

7
 

 

 


7

((

$


' 
$ 
 

 (  
 

 



$


$


3
   

 (
 

$

"My in:laws, Damanjit Kaur, Jang Singh, and Kulvir Singh are responsible for my death. These people are threatening and harassing me. They should be punished strictly."

&

8 
 
$
 
 



$1
 
 


$
+1

$

$+
6 

*

3
 (
  *



$ 


$1
 
 
 

4$+
,
5 4$
,




  !!
 
$
  


(


 1
0 ( %
4 $
 


& !! 
 
$   


(


 1

6 ,
,




#!

!! 
 
$
  


(

!
 1





$ 
 
$1
 
$
 
 






1 
( 
 

8 
 
$

$
( 

(
+1
 '

/

%
,
$+(
 

$


, 

 
 $

&#
   
 
 1
+

qua



 # !! 


 ,
 
+
 (

& / !!

8 
  $
$
$+(
 
$


 
9
$



  


 
+
7 (

 



:$1
 
$


 
 
$
, ,
 $



 (
 



7 ( 


1 
 
+



, 



8 
 
$
 $
( 

(
+1
 '

%
,
$+(
 
$,

$ 
 
+



7 ( 
+$


 

+

1

;:;9@

)
(+ *,
$



 $ ,

,$(


+1

 
$


 

,

1
 $

 



(
( 

 $



( , 
, 




"Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception"

3
+ 

 ( 
%$$
 
 

+1

;<+
$(
$
 1
+ *
 9&2


 ( *
%$,(

A   +  B3>    >  C'%<&&;011&'%<&D 
%2233





 

(
,$
$ ( 
,




!

 $

'

3$,

$1,
+%
+





$
 1
  +1


$

 
$
1 


 




$
 
+
$ 




($1

&



















3
,


1
 




,


 


;

,
 

,$ 
+ 

$
 

 * 
 

$ ( 


( 
%$$

 =
$(

>
+

, 1

?@


!

'
AE!#( ##3    +#C'
%<D0

22  2D/2DD'
$

, ,
+ 


$
+1

;<+
$(
$ 
, 
1



"27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the right to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting that as long back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court of Calcutta in Nagendra v. King Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 (479, 480) that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. In two other cases which, significantly, are the 'Meerut Conspiracy cases observations are to be found regarding the right to bail which deserve a special mention. In K.N.

Joglekar v.

437. It was observed by the Court that there was no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 498 and that the only principle which was established was that the discretion should be exercised judiciously. In Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 at p. 358 it was said that it was very unwise to make an attempt

2

















to lay down any particular rules which bind the High Court, having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the discretion of the Court unfettered. According to the High Court, the variety of cases that may arise from time to time cannot be safely classified and it is dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases and to say that in particular classes a bail may be granted but not in other classes. It was observed that the principle to be deduced from the various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent person must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence.

XX XX XX

29. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for the Court, that "there cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail".

30. In American Jurisprudence (2d, Vol. 8, page 806, para 39) it is stated :

"Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end." It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or

9

















as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail." #

Also, in AE!(

  :*! !    

  B!  !# 

 !

'7 

!  ;

 C'%<&D;
!*

! 10<'


;<+
$(
$
 *,
$,
4
'1
6 
 
$ 
 

+ 
$




"9. Thus the legal principle and practice validate the court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record:particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habitual, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the member of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.

10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even:handed and geared to he goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi: focal interests of justice to the individual involved and society affected.

11. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the test the reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare of present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted. mechanical



















detention should be demoted. In the United States, which has a constitutional perspective close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on the inhuman, of our sub:jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a policy favouring release justly sensible.

12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti:criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offences while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise', should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect.

Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our Constitution.



















 
+(
 *


 
 
$


 
 
 
,

 
+




 
+

+1
 $
'
( 1

+
$


%$,(

:$ 
( +
7
 
,

*

 
 
  ,
( 1
+





 1
( 1
+
(
 
 


,$
 ,

$
 
*
 

'




( 



,,  
$( 
 

+ ,
1
(

,


7 ,, 


($


$
  ,
($
+
+1
F
$

 ,

7
 %$

$+1


 1
$ 
:$
)  

1


( 


   
+ 


(+


+$
 

 (
 $


( 
$  > 

3
$
 
7 (

 



$

  +
7 

, 
?@

 




 
 

 


( +

+,




3
 

(,

+

(  
(

 $(  
?@
B

, 

,


-'


$


$


#/
'


(
:$



+
%$ 
+1
  
  $



 
 ,G
?@

4$+
,
5
4$
,
 


  !!
 
$
  


(


 1 ( %
4 $




& !! 
 
$
  


(


 1

6 ,
,




#! !! 
 
$   


(

!
 1



 1G
?@
H$


 
9 $




 


 
+
7 (

 G ?@ 




1

( 
 
?@
.
$$
$
$

!

















+

+1
*,


+

+ 
?@
3 


*1
 $
1(


-  
/

,

 +
( 
$

$
(




 

, 



,$ 
+ 



3 $
((,
$

(

$( 



 ?@
 


66#="%
3




+
 

+ 
 $,

+ 
+

$1
+


  


 6$ 

, I 
$I0$1

, 

&

;
1,
+
 

+
 
 


 
(


 


1
( 

,




2





 
%'(2#("%


9


,
 ?@

1
 
%'(2#("%

,1

5,-  47 + +  

  > )%""2 B
 *,I 

DI. B
 +

DI.