The main legal point established is that bail should reflect a balance between the sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of society, considering the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial.

JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner craves for indulgence of this Court for his being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.527 dated 19.10.2017, under Sections 379-B, 34 of the IPC (offences under Sections 411 and 201 of the IPC added later), registered at P.S. Civil Lines, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused Kimti Lal snatched the purse of the complainant, while she was returning home on a rickshaw.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the hereinabove extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-

(i) Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, as he has not been named in the FIR, rather his name surfaced in the alleged confessional statement of co-accused ;

(ii) Recovery of mobile has already been effected from co-accused Kimti Lal, who was arrested prior to arrest of the present petitioner;

(iii) Co-accused Kimti Lal has been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court concerned;

(iv) Petitioner has undergone incarceration of approx. 6 months;

(v) Investigation stands completed, whereupon, Final Report has also been presented on 22.05.2023;

(vi) the trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon, as out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, none has yet been examined, therefore, keeping the petitioner behinds the bars would serve no purpose;

(vii) though petitioner is involved in another FIR bearing No.196 of 2016, registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Amritsar, however, he has been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. In this regard, he has placed on record a copy of order dated 18.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.”

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel, who is in receipt of advance notice, has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner, as issued by the Additional Superintendent, Central Jail, Goindwal. Placing heavy reliance upon the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, as revealed in the custody certificate (supra), inasmuch as, his being involved in two other criminal cases, she has opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner. However, on instructions imparted to her by the official concerned, she verifies that none out of the total 14 prosecution witnesses has yet been examined.

ANALYSIS

5. “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception”. This basic principle of criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, way back in 1978, in its landmark judgment titled “State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay”, 1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535. This principle finds its roots in one of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though the underlying objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.

6. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person. However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

7. In “Nikesh Tarachand Shah V. Union of India”, (2018) 11 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recorded the following:-

“14. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 at 586-588, the purpose of granting bail is set out with great felicity as follows:-

“27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the right to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting that as long back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court