Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KIRTI SINGH, J.
Mohd. Ishtikar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M NO. 31184 of 2024(O&M)
Decided On : 06-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Dhruv Sihag, Advocate and Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates that prolonged detention without charges is unjust, warranting bail.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Section 11 - Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan & Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 - Grant of regular bail - Petitioner in custody for over 7 months without charges framed - Court emphasizes the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution - Citing Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court reiterates that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. (Paras 6, 7, 9)

(B) Conditions of bail - Petitioner ordered to not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, and must appear before the trial court. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested under FIR No.0612 for alleged involvement in transporting gauvansh without proper authorization. The police apprehended two vehicles loaded with cattle. The petitioner claims false implication and has no prior criminal record.

Findings of Court:
The court finds that continued detention is unjust given the lack of charges and the conditions of jails, which violate the right to speedy trial.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the duration of custody and the absence of framed charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prolonged detention without trial violates Article 21, emphasizing the importance of a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Result: Petition allowed; petitioner granted bail.

JUDGMENT

Kirti Singh, J. (Oral)

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0612 dated 26.12.2023, under section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 13(1) & 17 of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan & Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, registered at Police Station Agroha, District Hissar, Haryana.

2. The gist of the allegations as alleged against the petitioner are that on 26.12.2023, the police received information that two vehicles loaded with gauvansh had been apprehended at Toll Plaza. After getting this information, the police party reached at the Toll Plaza where complainant Sanjay and his companion Sunil presented both the vehicles and two boys. Upon checking, the vehicles were found packed with gauvansh. On checking the vehicle bearing registration No.UP37T-2050, 14 cows were found and on checking vehicle bearing registration No.HR61A-2493, 08 cows and 04 oxen were found. The vehicles as well as the gauvansh were taken into police custody.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and from a bare reading of the FIR, it is apparent that no offence has been committed by him. The petitioner is in custody since 27.12.2023 and there is no other criminal case registered against him. He has placed reliance upon the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-33945- 2024 titled as Vakil v. State of Haryana and order dated 29.07.2024 passed in CRM-M-35056-2024 titled as Sahil @ Mohammad Sahil v. State of Haryana in support of his submissions.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has filed custody certificate in Court and as per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 07 months and 09 days on 05.08.2024 however, submits that there is no other criminal case registered against him. He on instructions from the concerned investigating officer submits that challan has been presented on 20.02.2024 and charges are yet to be framed. The next date of hearing before the learned trial Court is 06.09.2024. He however, contends that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 07 months and 09 days and the challan was presented on 20.02.2024, however, till date the charges have not been framed. It would be unjust to keep him behind bars looking at the condition of the jails which are not conducive for rehabilitation process and detaining the accused persons in jails would also tantamounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is against the principle "Bail is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in the judgment of Apex Court in "Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22".

7. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. The Apex Court in "Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another", 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 634 observed that Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.

8. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner shall be established during the course of the trial. Further, considering the aspect that the trial is yet to began as the charges are yet to be framed, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration

Click Here to Read the rest of this document