Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
Karan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No. 14015 of 2023
Decided On : 15-01-2024
Regular Bail - Criminal Law - Arms Act, 1959, Section 25; Indian Penal Code, Sections 323, 324, 302 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to bail, presumption of innocence, and the right to a speedy trial. The court emphasized the need to strike a balance between individual liberty and the interest of society when granting or refusing bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail after being summoned to face trial under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. in a case involving charges under Sections 323, 324, 302 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner had been declared innocent by the investigating agency, but was later summoned to face trial. The petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender and was arrested after about a year of being on the run.
Finding of the Court:
The court found it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, considering the delay in the conclusion of the trial and the fact that the petitioner had already been summoned to face trial. The court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail, with a caution that any future similar offenses could lead to the cancellation of the bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail despite being declared a proclaimed offender and the delay in the conclusion of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding the presumption of innocence of an accused until proven guilty, and the need to strike a balance between individual liberty and the interest of society when deciding on bail applications.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail, with a caution regarding future similar offenses.
Judgment
Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
Through the instant petition, the petitioner craves for indulgence of this Court for his being enlarged on regular bail, who has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.to face trial alongwith other co-accused in case FIR No. 317 dated 19.07.2020, under Sections 323, 324, 302 of the IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station City Farakpur, District Yamunanagar.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
2. The prosecution agency was set into motion on a complaint made by Lalit Kumar. The gist of the allegations as recorded by the learned trial court concerned, at the time of declining the plea of regular bail application reads as under:-
“2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.07.2020, a telephonic information was received at Gandhi Nagar Chowki from the Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar to the effect that one Lalit Kumar son of Puran Chand was admitted in the hospital on account of sustaining injuries in a fight. Upon this, HC Yusuf Ali reached Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. He obtained MLR and medical rukka etc. The injured was declared unfit for giving statement. Thereafter, on 09.07.2020, statement of Lalit Kumar was recorded to the effect that on 01.07.2020 at around 09:40 P.M., Happy, Happy’s wife and his neighbourer Ashu alias Chidiya met him near Shiv Temple. On the asking of complainant, Happy told him that he was going to his (Happy’s) in-law’s place and on his asking, complainant accompanied them. They stopped at some distance from the house of Happy in-laws. Happy’s wife went inside her parental house and after about 5-6 minutes, she came out of her parental house after about 5-6 minutes. In the meantime, Happy’s father-in-law and Happy’s brother-in-law came there and an argument started between them and said Happy. He (complainant) tried to pacify them, but they did not pay any heed to him and he was pushed aside by Happy’s father-in-law. He was asked to leave whereupon he started retreating from there. Thereupon, Happy’s brother-in-law threatened him (complainant) that he would see him in 15 minutes. Thereafter, he, Happy, Happy’s wife and Ashu started returning from Happy’s in-laws place. When they reached near Bohra Brick Kiln Office and he was in the process of urination, Happy’s brother-in-law hit him with a sharp edged weapon on his neck. When he looked back, Happy’s brother-in-law fled. Thereupon, he got unconscious and fell on the ground. When he gained some consciousness, he ran towards his house. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar for treatment by his brother namely Jaipal. Based on said facts an FIR bearing registration No.317 dated 19.07.2020 was registered at P.S. Farakpur, Yamuna Nagar, under Section 323 & 324 of IPC. On 01.07.2020, Investigating Officer HC Yusuf Ali received an information to the effect that Lalit Kumar son of Puran Chand, who had sustained injuries on 01.07.2020 and was admitted at the Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar on 19.07.2020, had died during the course of treatment. Upon this, Section 302 IPC was added. The Post-mortem upon dead body of Lalit Kumar was conducted. On 21.07.2020 Happy’s brother-in-law was joined into investigation, however, he was found innocent. Subsequently, investigation of the case was conducted by Sub Inspector Mohan Lal. During investigation, one Pal Yadav was joined into investigation, who suffered his confessional/disclosure statement on 24.07.2020 to the effect that on 01.07.2020 at about 8:00 PM, he was returning to his house on his motorcycle. On the way, he met three boys and one lady. He blew the horn for providing him side. He did not know the names of the said three persons. They stopped him and started assaulting and abusing him. He went to his house. After some time, he saw that some persons had gathered little ahead of his street and lot of noise was being made. He went at the spot where he met the said three boys and lady. They again abused him and assaulted him. He got enraged and broug
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial.
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 t....
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial are fundamental principles guiding bail decisions.
The court established that bail is the default option in criminal law, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial, prior to evaluating eyewitness testimony.
The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception' and the right to a speedy trial are central legal points established in the judgment.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; the presumption of innocence and circumstances of each case govern bail decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
