The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in granting bail, considering the cumulative effect of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail, and the imposition of restrictive conditions to ensure compliance with the law.

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 6 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The complainant informed the police that his family and accused Rasheed, in equal shares, jointly possess the land as gair marushi. Rasheed wanted to grab their share, and on May 29, 2020, at 12.30 PM, he and other persons, including the petitioner Mausam, were sitting in front of their house, and they had danda, lathi, axe, and gun with them. When they were crossing their house to go to their house, Rasheed fired a gunshot at the left chest of his brother Azad and his forehead. Accused Shokin gave danda blows to the complainant and his family members. On raising cries, villagers assembled, and the accused fled away. The injured succumbed to the bullet injury.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

5. Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail.

REASONING:

6. During the investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner had also hit the victim's family with a bamboo stick, and as such, the investigator had arrested him on 11-06-2021. A perusal of the initial version reveals that the complainant had not attributed any injury to the petitioner. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any motive to cause injury. The petitioner is a first offender, aged just 20 years, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 4 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 considerations. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of