The grant of bail should be balanced with the need for a fair trial and the safety of witnesses and the victim's family.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Accused Sarabjeet Kaur was married to Pala Singh, who expired, and after his death, as per custom, Sarabjeet Kaur was married with Jagna Singh, her elder brother- in-law (Jeth), i.e., brother of Pala Singh, through Kareva marriage. After the death of Pala Singh, father of Sababjeet Kaur, named Baldev Singh had also started residing with them at the same village. On 5th June, 2019, there a scuffle between Sarabjeet's second husband and her father relating to irrigation. The allegations are that Baldev Singh called many people and, in the morning, dead body of Jagna was found on a cot in the fields.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail.

REASONING:

5. The reply dated 20-04-2021 filed by the SHO of the concerned police station explicitly stated that the some of the accused persons, namely Sarabjit Kaur, Gagandeep Singh, and Mohni Singh were never declared innocent and the investigation qua them never stopped, but continued throughout.

6. As per para 2 of the bail, the Sarabjit Kaur was married to the petitioner's brothers, earlier with Pala Singh and after his death with deceased Jagna Singh through Kareva marriage.The case is of circumstantial evidence, and there is no prima facie material to point out towards the petitioner except that he is related to Sarabjeet Kaur, but that way, he was also related to the deceased, and on this ground alone, there would be no justification to deny bail, that too at such a belated stage. Any further analysis of the prosecution's evidence or discussions on its quality might influence the trial and impact its outcome.

7. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interes