Manik Babbar v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 05.09.2023

Pronounced on: 12.09.2023 Manik Babbar ...PeƟƟoner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate for the peƟƟoner.

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police StaƟon SecƟons 06.02.2019 Navi Baradari, 302, 307, 324, 148, 149, 109, District Jalandhar 120-B IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Commissionerate, Act (326, 201 IPC added later on) 1.

The peƟƟoner incarcerated in the FIR capƟoned above has come up before this Court under SecƟon 439 CrPC seeking bail.

2.

In paragraph 14 of the bail applicaƟon, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.

FIR No.

Dated Offences Police StaƟon 1.

10.08.2021 307, 34 and 25,27,54, 59 of Arms Act Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar 2.

01.07.2022 20, 61, 85 of NDPS Act Kowali, Kapurthala 3.

30.06.2017 21, 29, 61 of NDPS Act Kartarpur, Jalandhar 3.

The peƟƟoner contends that the pre-trial incarceraƟon would cause an irreversible injusƟce to the peƟƟoner and family. 4.

While opposing bail, the contenƟons on behalf of the State are that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail and trial is at advance stage.

REASONING:

5.

In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022:PHHC:003983 [Para 8], CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail peƟƟon of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the anƟthesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First InformaƟon Reports, wherein the bail peƟƟoner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecuƟons resulƟng in acquiƩal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecuƟon stands withdrawn, or prosecuƟon filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

6.

The peƟƟoner has criminal history of heinous and grave crimes. The peƟƟon does not refer to any averment based on which this court is assured that if this recidivist is released on bail, then he shall not indulge in criminal behavior. 7.

The allegaƟons against the peƟƟoner are that he along with his associate aƩacked the complainant party on 06.02.2019 and fired gun shots on the complainant's brother, namely, Davinder Singh, also gave dater blow on his head, due to which he expired. When the complainant rushed to save his brother even he was fired upon. In between some of the co-accused also infected datar blows on the complainant. Although, iniƟally the peƟƟoner's name was not menƟoned, however, aŌer a gap of just two days, the complainant named him as Manak Sharma, which is further clarified that he did not know the surname correctly and it was the peƟƟoner Manik Babbar, who was Manak Sharma and even datar was aƩributed to him.

Although, six persons who were iniƟally nominated as an accused were found innocent in the invesƟgaƟon and were absolved but the invesƟgator found evidence against the peƟƟoner with a specific role that he had inflicted a datar blow on the head of the complainant with the intenƟon to kill and to save himself, the complainant has raised his leŌ hand and as such the dater hit in the leŌ thumb. The peƟƟoner says that the fatal blow was not inflicted by him is inconsequenƟal because the FIR menƟons secƟon 149 of IPC i.e. common object of all the accused was to cause death. Counsel for the peƟƟoner further submits that the witnesses, who have been examined, did not support the prosecuƟon and as such, the peƟƟoner is likely to be acquiƩed.

This Court cannot comment on this because if the bail is granted by observing that the evidence is insufficient for convicƟon then it would certainly prejudice the prosecuƟons' case. Needles to say, it is for the trial Court to appreciate the evidence of witnesses.

criminal history including two cases under the NDPS Act and one under aƩempt to murder. The trial is at advance stage and in the enƟrety of facts and circumstances, the peƟƟoner fails to make out a case for bail.

8.

A perusal of the bail peƟƟon and the documents aƩached, primafacie points towards the peƟƟoner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail and he is neither enƟtled to bail on merits nor on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial incarceraƟon. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the peƟƟoner; this court refrains from doing so.

9.

Any observaƟon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. The peƟƟon is dismissed. All pending applicaƟons, if any, stand closed. However, considering the peƟƟoner's right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarceraƟon, this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial by Dec 31, 2023, of which the prosecuƟon evidence be completed by Oct 31, 2023, and latest by Nov 30, 2023, and the remaining Ɵme to provide an opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence, if so desired, and to conclude its hearing. To meet the deadline, an endeavour be made to speed up the process for service and to pass the necessary direcƟons in this regard.

It is clarified that if expediƟng this trial disturbs the docket of the concerned court, then a balance be struck, and if, on this account, any delay happens, then an extension can be sought by menƟoning such reasons. It is clarified that this order speeding up the trial is subject to the condiƟon that neither the peƟƟoner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tacƟcs to delay the trial. If they do so, this order of expediƟng the trial shall stand automaƟcally recalled by resorƟng to SecƟon 362, read with SecƟon 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without any further reference to this court. If any of the accused is on bail and fail(s) to aƩend the trial without any sufficient cause, then they be dealt with strictly but in accordance with law.

It is clarified that if the trial is not concluded by the date menƟoned above, and if the delay is not aƩributable to the peƟƟoner, then the peƟƟoner may file an applicaƟon for bail before the trial court, which shall decide it expediƟously and consider the bail on the grounds of pre-trial custody, and all the previous orders of dismissal passed by the trial court or High Court shall not come in the way. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 12.09.

Yes Whether reportable:

No.