Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Kirti Singh, J.
Parminder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No. 3445 of 2024
Decided On : 29-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Vaibhav Sehgal, Deepak Thukral, Gaurav Bansal

Bail is a rule, jail is an exception; deprivation of liberty without a speedy trial violates Article 21.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 395 and 397 - Grant of regular bail - Petitioner accused of robbery and theft - Petitioner has undergone 1 year and 27 days of custody with no other cases against him - Conditions of jails not conducive for rehabilitation, violating Article 21 - Bail is a rule, jail is an exception. (Paras 1, 7, 11)

(B) Right to Speedy Trial - Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is inconsistent with Article 21 - Right to Speedy Trial encompasses all stages including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, and retrial. (Paras 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of robbery involving Rs. 6 lacs and other valuables. He was apprehended based on CCTV footage. The petitioner claims false implication and has no prior criminal record. (Paras 1, 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court found that further incarceration would not serve any purpose and that the trial would take considerable time. The petitioner was granted bail with specific conditions. (Paras 10, 11)

Issues: The main issues were the justification for bail considering the petitioner’s custody duration and the conditions of jails. (Paras 6, 7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons against it, and that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental. (Paras 7, 9)

Result: Petition allowed; the petitioner is granted bail subject to conditions.

JUDGMENT :

Kirti Singh, J.

1. 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. 285 dated 17.09.2023, under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC, registered at Police Station Barara, District Ambala.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was moved by Kamaljeet Singh, who alleged that he was involved in finance work. His brother-in-law, Rupinder Singh, had given him Rs. 6 lacs to arrange for his nephew’s travel abroad. On 16.9.2023, around 8:00 pm, while Kamaljeet was inside his house and his wife was at the gate, an Innova car stopped nearby, Three individuals alighted from the car, who forcibly entered the house. Later three more individuals came there and at gunpoint, they threatened the complainant and forcibly took Rs. 6 lacs in cash, a gold kara, four rings and his mobile phone. On the basis of CCTV footage, the car was identified and Parminder Singh-petitioner, who was driving, was apprehended and identified by the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that offending vehicle is not owned by the petitioner and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year and 27 days and he has clean antecedents.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year and 27 days and there is no other case registered against the petitioner. He on instructions from the concerned police official submits that challan was presented on 02.12.2023 and charges were framed on 04.03.2024 and out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined.

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

6. Admittedly, the challan was presented on 02.12.2023 and charges were framed on 04.03.2024 and out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined till date. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year and 27 days and there is no other case registered against him.

7. 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 vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22.

8. As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another case. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:

“As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.”

9. 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document