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.49 dated 25.03.2022, under Sections 379-B & 411 IPC, registered at Police Station Majitha Road, Amritsar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that allegedly on 24.03.2022, at around 8.40 p.m. the complainant along with her daughter-in-law, namely, Shikha Sharma were walking on the street where two persons with muffled faces came on Activa Scooter and the pillion rider snatched the gold chain worn by her and fled from the spot. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has undergone an actual custody of 02 years, 01 month and 20 days. The petitioner is involved in 11 other criminal cases, however, in 03 cases he has been acquitted and in 02 cases he has already been undergone the sentence.

Further, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in "Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22" and "Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another", 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 634 in support of his submissions.

3. 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 status report dated 30.07.2024 and custody certificate in Court today and the same are taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 02 years, 01 month and 20 days and the petitioner is involved in 11 other criminal cases, however, in 03 cases he has been acquitted and in 02 cases he has already been undergone the sentence. He on instructions from the concerned investigating officer submits that charges were framed on 15.11.2022 and till date, no prosecution witness has been examined. The next date of hearing before the learned trial Court is 06.08.2024, however, in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

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

5. The charges were framed on 15.11.2022 and none of the prosecution witness has been examined till date. The petitioner has undergone actual custody of 02 years, 01 month and 20 days.

6. 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".

7. As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the concession of bail.

8. 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 pen