Subhas Alias Sube v. State Of Haryana
! "
#! !
!$ %!& '()*'
#$% &'
()(% *
+,- ' ./($ (0 )1 ()((
*
%(% /)0 ,2
%)( *
3 '
*
( (+,- +
+,-
4 "To P.S Shivaji NAGAR DISTT GGM Statement of Praveen S/O Shri Kishan Lal Caste Balmik R/O H.NO 206/20 Gali NO(2 H.NO Om Nagar Near SD School GGM, Age 32 years 9958570028 stated that I am a permanent resident of the above address and do labour work. On 19.09.2022, 1 left home in search of labour work. Thereafter, I met Dharam S/O Shri Hari Singh R/O. Om Nagar at Labour Chowk. We did not get work there, so we drank alcohol there. Thereafter, on the other side of the road in front of Rama Hospital, Dharam started
gambling, I was also standing there with Dharam. After that, Dharam got into a fight with an unknown person over some issue, whose name I do not know. He comes to Labour Chowk in search of work. During this, Dharam got into a fight and that boy hit me in my stomach with a brick due to which I fell down on the ground. After that, he picked me up from the ground and said that today I will kill you and in the meantime, seeing the public coming there, he threatened to kill me and ran away and said that today you are saved but in future I will kill you. After that I become unconscious. After that my father came and took me home but due to my ill health, he took me to a private hospital. But due to the demand for more money, my father admitted me to Delhi Safdarjang Hospital on 21.09.2022, where I am undergoing treatment till today. I and my family members have been getting me treated till now, today my mother informed the police about this, after getting the information, today I have written my statement to you, read it, which is correct, please take legal action against the above."
./,*/,0./-
/ 1*2(34 .4 ,2* 5*,0,0./*'
"
" +,-
*
%)(
,
*
5 * * "
"
3*
AIR 2007 SC 1003.
/ 1*2(34 .4 ,2* ,(,* 7
2
*
"
4
"
"
8 2 2 * 5
2 ,* * 7 *
*
*
5
"
5 5
# /(3)-0- &
*
5 * * "
"9 ( /
($
5 *
* * )( )% ()(%
(# 5 .% 6 *
5 "
* " 5 :bail is a rule and jail is an exception"
5
*
6
(.
2 ,
" 2 5 * 3*
!"! " # $ - 3*
4 "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 first(time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct.
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.
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."
!
*
3 (.
2 ,
*
:% &
'( %)*+ , + -+ .
"".
& 5 4 4
"
* 5
*
* 5 5
/ *30*4 , 5 " "
*
"
2;
* ,
4 "
5 5
* "
6 % !&
Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No