Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 918

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Renu Bala - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-8098-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-05-2022

Advocates:
Mr. H. S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. M. S. Nagra, AAG, Punjab., for the Respondent.

The fundamental right to a speedy trial and the changed circumstances justifying subsequent regular bail applications were central legal principles established in the judgment.

Headnote:
Regular Bail - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 323, 326, 307, 506 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly Sections 323, 326, 307, and 506, and emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial and the changed circumstances justifying subsequent regular bail applications.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a third petition for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving charges under Sections 323, 326, 307, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner had been in custody for over 2 years and 3 months and argued that the trial was likely to take time.
Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the petition for regular bail, considering the petitioner's custody period, the fundamental right to a speedy trial, and the changed circumstances justifying subsequent regular bail applications.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's custody period, the likelihood of a lengthy trial, and the previous dismissal of bail applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial and the changed circumstances justifying subsequent regular bail applications, as well as the delay in the trial and the impact on the accused's custody period.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's petition for regular bail, ordering her release on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds and subject to not being required in any other case.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - CRM-8871-2022

1. Allowed as prayed for.

2. Annexure A-1 is taken on record subject to all just exception.

Main Case

3. This is the third petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 13 dated 24.01.2020 under Sections 323, 326, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the complainant/injured and has two minor children and has been in custody since 24.01.2020 and there are as many as 11 witnesses out of whom, 4 witnesses have been examined and 7 witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that there is no doctor's opinion declaring any injury to be dangerous to life. It is contended that the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.05.2020 and the second regular bail application was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 29.07.2020. It is submitted that after 29.07.2020, 3 private witnesses i.e. the complainant, the husband of the complainant and the son of the complainant have been examined and thus, no question of influencing the said witnesses arises. It is contended that the total custody of the petitioner is more than 2 years, 3 months and 20 days.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner ha relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench titled a Balraj Jagdish Chopra Vs. State of Punjab reported a 2021 (2) Law Herald 1230, wherein, under similar circumstances, in a case where the earlier bail application was dismissed by giving detailed reason, subsequently, the third regular bail application of the petitioner therein was allowed. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Satish Kumar Vs. State of Haryan reported a 2021 (3) Law Herald 2660. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court after passing of the order dated 29.07.2020 by the coordinate Bench of this Court dismissing the second regular bail application of the petitioner.

6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present application for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner inflicted injuries with a wooden bat on the head of her mother-in-law and on account of the said injury, as per the FIR, even blood had came oozing out from the forehead of her mother-in-law.

7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paperbook.

8. The petitioner has been in custody since 24.01.2020 i.e. 2 years, 3 months and 20 days approximately. There are as many as 11 witnesses out of which, 4 witnesses have been examined and 7 witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is stated not to be involved in any other criminal case and is a lady with two minor children to take care of. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.05.2020 and the second bail application was dismissed by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 29.07.2020. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order was not challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even after the passing of the said order, a period of more than 1 year and 9 months has elapsed. The private witnesses i.e. the complainant and the husband of the complainant have been examined after 29.07.2020 and thus, the question of influencing the private witnesses does not arise and the same also constitutes a substantial change in circumstance, after the passing of the order dated 29.07.2020. The Division Bench of this Court in Balraj Jagdish Chopra (supra) has held as under:

"First petition-CRM-M-10053-2019 filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail was dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2019 and his second petition-CRM-M 4343-2020 for grant of regular bail and applica

Click Here to Read the rest of this document