The judgment established the discretion of judges to grant bail based on a comprehensive evaluation of circumstances and the entitlement to bail for non-bailable offences under specific conditions.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, came up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The accused party, who were armed with various weapons, inflicted various injuries on the complainant party, and the petitioner was named in FIR as one of the assailants. However, the case of the accused party is that there was a cross-case with opposite version, relating to the same incident and the present FIR was a counterblast and now the parties have settled their disputes, out of court.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. He further contends that coaccused Gurbhej Singh @ Kalu Bhatti as well as Pargat Singh @ sunny have already been granted concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2022 passed in CRM-M-39753-2021 and CRM-M-26297-2021 respectively.

5. Ld. counsel representing the State on instructions from ASI Kulbir opposes bail.

REASONING:

6. It remains undisputed that there is a cross-case relating to the same incident. In the facts of the case, it is difficult to primafacie opine that which of the party was assailant and which acted in private defence. Furthermore, the parties have compromised the matter, although the compromise is being considered as a factor for bail, yet it would not imply the acceptance of such compromise by this court. The petitioner is a first offender, who is in custody since 09-07-2021, i.e., for more than one year and two months, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraphs 4 & 5 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.

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 interest and similar other con