Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. K.J. Mullanpur, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Raghav Garg, AAG, Punjab

JUDGMENT :

Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioner craves for indulgence of this Court for his being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.274 dated 20.12.2023, under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kharar, Distrcit SAS Nagar, Punjab. 

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER

2. The prosecution agency was set into motion on a complaint made by Manpreet Singh, who is distant relative of the present petitioner, with the allegations that he had paid Rs. 14.5 lacs, in cash to the present petitioner, in presence of Netar Singh, and Sarabjit Kaur, in installments in the month of September, 2021, under the pretext that the petitioner will get him a job in the Police Department. The Whatsapp chat in this regard, was also produced by the complainant during investigation, and from the Whatsapp chat, the investigating agency concluded that, it was the petitioner, who induced the complainant, that he will get him a job, as he has links with the higher officials of the Police Department.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the hereinabove extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-

(i) Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case;

(ii) The instant FIR has been lodged by the complainant after a delay of 02 years;

(iii) The complainant is a distant relative of the present petitioner, and they are having common land in the nearby village;

(iv) Pressure is exerted upon the widow mother of the present petitioner, to sign papers, in order to sell her shares.

(v) Petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 03 months, and 12 days, as on today, and the case is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.

(vi) The challan was presented on 04.03.2024, and even the charges have been framed in the present matter.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel, who is in receipt of advance notice, has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner, as issued by the Additional Superintendent of Central Jail, Patiala. The same is taken on record. A perusal of the custody certificate reveals that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 03 months and 12 days, as on today. A perusal of the custody certificate further reveals that the petitioner is involved in three other criminal cases. Learned State counsel on instructions, imparted to him from the official respondent, submits that after conclusion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., had already been filed on 04.03.2024, and the charges have already been framed.

ANALYSIS

5. "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception This basic principle of criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, way back in 1978, in its landmark judgment titled "State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay", 1977 AIR 2447,1978 SCR (1) 535. This principle finds its roots in one of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though the underlying objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.

6. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person.

However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is "the presumption of innocence", besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

7. In Nikesh Tarachand Shah V. Union of India", (2018) 11 SCC1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded the following

"14. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 at 586-588, the purpose of granting bail is set out with great felicity asfollows:-

28. Coming nearer home, it was observed by Krishna Iyer, J., in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor