High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/45344/2024allowed

Sandeep Singh Alias Soni v. State Of Punjab

2024-09-17Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil8 pages

# $ % !

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

%&'

() *+*'

, ,

) *.

*% +* *+**

'/01(

# !&.+ 2 %!!

*+!

, 3

, 4, ,

, * 5

1 "At this time statement Raju son of Sita Ram r/o House No. B 18/305 Samania Gate Patiala Age about 47 years Mo: No: 9888424457 written by ASI Balkar Singh Division No. 2 Patiala for registering a case against unknown person/persons vide hand of C Surinder Kumar 1571/Ptwas received at police station details of which are," stated that I am a resident of the

said address and I work as a license maker in the office of the District Transport Officer. 1 yesterday on 23.02.2022,the time was around 9:45PM that I came out to Sabji Mandi side to have my meal and then suddenly I got a call from a friend for which I put the phone to my ear to listen to the call. A motorcycle Splendor number PB11CD 1391 came from Hanuman temple Patiala side whose driver whose profile is as following: age about 25 years wearing gray jacket and blue jeans and whose beard hair was cut. I can recognize him if he is produced before me. That when I came a little further to Binni Gas Agency Patiala, he snatched my mobile phone Redmi 7A which I was using to hear the call. The bill of which I will present myself later, and then this person drove away with his motorcycle. He snatched my mobile phone and ran away.

I also chased for a long distance at that time and raised hue and cry but I could not succeed in catching him. When I was coming to the police station, I came to know that yesterday on 23.02.2022, around 9:40 PM, from Rahul Goyal son of Fakir Chand, resident of 32 Motya Enclave, near Mahindra College, Patiala, while going to Mahindra College, Patiala a mobile phone was snatched at Bhagat Singh Chowk Phone 11 color white and from Arjan son of Lakhan Singh resident of village Fatehpur police station Pasiana near Fuara Chowk Patiala Mobile phone mark WE Y20 and from Kuljit Singh son of Swaran Singh resident of house number 327/4 bank side division number 2 Gahari Saaj Mohalla Patiala side phone Samsung Color white A32 has also been snatched from Sabji Mandi Patiala. I met you near Hanuman Mandir. You have written a statement.

It is correct. Action should be taken. Sd/Raju Verified. Police Proceedings: Today I, ASI including C Gurpreet Singh No. 3438/Pti,C Surinder Singh No. 1571/Pti were present in Hanuman Mandir Patiala in connection with patrolling in a private vehicle and searching for suspicious and bad men.

statement with me and read it word by word. Who, having read and heard and believed it to be true, signed his statement in English, which was verified by the ASI. From the statement is an offense under 379 B IPC is made out. The said statement is being sent to the police station of vide hand of C Surinder Singh No. 1571/Ptl. A case should be registered and the case number should be informed. Special reports should be issued and the UC Control Room, Patialashould be notified via W/M. I am present on spot with fellow employees. At:Hanuman BHS Parikshaka, At:07:00PM,Latitude:30.319394, Longitude: 76.401403. Sd/ASI, P.S. Mandi Patiala, Date: 24.02.2022 Statement was receivedand a case of the said crime against the said unknown person was registered and the record was sent to the police station.

Copies of the FIR's with special reports and handed over to PHG Gurdarshan Singh 18486 and sent toarea Magistrate and Senior Officers. In charge control room Patiala is being informed W/M. original statement including original statement is being sent vide hand of C Surinder Singh 1571/Pt| to ASI Balkar Singh Division No. 2 Patialafor further action. Closure report: DDR No:50, At:07:45PM, dated: 24.02.

+0/&0/(+0* 0 1&.2') +) /.& 3&/(/(+0&4 6

,,5 7 ,

, -

, 7 " ,

5 , -

7 7 , 8

0 1&.2') +) /.& /2/& 9 ,

5 # 4 $

: $

77 % 02'5*(* ( 75

7 ,,5 7

< 5

, 8

7 ,

!% +* *+*%

+/ +. *+*% , , !/

4 ,5 4 =7

5 4 # , , 4,, $ , 7 7 4

7 = #

4 ,

, , ,

7 =

1 "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

6 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 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."

" , #

, ,4 ,

, *!

" ,

7 = >!

#$ !

(

1, ,

, $ 4

7 4 4

7 ,

;

, , ,

5 , # ?

5 ,,4

:4 7 , 5

= 7 $ %

Poonam Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No