Bail should be granted unless compelling reasons exist, with conditions ensuring compliance and victim protection.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. 

The petitioner, incarcerated 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. As per para 14 of the petition, petitioner has no criminal history.

3. Petitioner's counsels prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. The State and complainant oppose bail.

5. Facts of the case are being taken from reply dated 09.07.2024, which reads as follows:-

"That it is submitted that the brief facts pertaining to the present case are that the petitioner Sukhdev Singh got recorded his statement before the investigating officer to the effect that he is a farmer by occupation and they are two brothers and one sister and the eldest is Kulwinder Kaur and she is married, he is younger to her and his brother Baldev Singh is the youngest aged 40 who is unmarried. The land of Supinder Kaur wife of Dhyan Singh and Rajwinder Singh son of Kuldeep Singh,residents of Rurreasal and their land are located together and there has been a dispute over the said land since long time for water canal and they had been stopping them from digging the water canal. On 03/05/2023, at about 3:00 p.m., Supinder Kaur, Rajwinder Singh along with Gurmej Singh son of Santokh Singh, Satnam Singh son of Harbans Singh, Kirat Singh, Jitender Singh S/o Balwinder Singh. (Binda), Manjeet Singh son of Channan Singh i.e. present petitioner came in a drunk condition on NO their land and destroyed their existing water canal and forcefully dug a new water canal in their land and they have harassed them a lot and his brother Baldev Singh said to him that they have harassed them a lot and have troubled and tortured them a lot and if he face any physical or financial damage then all of the persons mentioned above will be held responsible for this and on 04/05/2023,his Brother Baldev Singh left their home at 6am in the morning in a tensed state and came back home at 8 am and fell on his bed in a sick condition due to which they rushed him to the nearby hospital by arranging a vehicle but he died on the way itself before reaching the hospital. Due to the persons mentioned above, his brother ate poison and committed suicide and the aforesaid persons are all responsible for the death of his brother and in this regard, the present case FIR No.58 dated 04.05.2023, under section 306/120-B of IPC has been registered at PS Sadar Tarn Taran against the accused namely Supinder Kaur, Rajwinder Singh, Gurmej Singh, Satnam Singh, Kirat Singh, Jatinder Singh and Manjit Singh i.e. present petitioner."

6. As per the custody certificates, the petitioner is in custody from last 2 months and 21 days. Given the nature of allegations against the petitioner, role attributed viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, 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.

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