The main legal point established in the judgment is the judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail and imposing stringent conditions to prevent influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, and intimidating witnesses.

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

3. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. The State opposes the bail.

REASONING:

5. On Mar 12, 2022, the petitioner, allegedly armed with a dang, along with his accomplices, namely Nirmal Singh and Manpinder Singh, assaulted the deceased, who died after seventeen days of such assault. As per FIR, Manpinder Singh, the co-accused, threw two bricks at the victim, one of which hit his head and the other on the chin. After that, the petitioner inflicted dang blows. On Mar 29, 2022, i.e., after 17 days, the victim died as a consequence of the complications due to the assault. As per the post-mortem report, the death resulted from Pneumonia, and the deceased was a chronic alcoholic two corresponding injuries, one on the head and one on the chin, were mentioned in the report.

6. As per paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 31-03-2022. Given the time gap between injury and death, the absence of corroboration of any injury received from dang blow, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct.

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 tha