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.83, dated 05.09.2023, under Sections 379-B(2) read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, (Section 411 and 201 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Division-C, District Amritsar.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith co- accused, had threatened the complainant with a pistol and snatched his money bag containing Rs.l lakh in cash, while he was going to his home after closing his shop on a motorcycle.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

3. In asking for the relief (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case which has been implanted upon him and he is injudicial custody since 15.11.2023.

4. He further submits that though the petitioner is involved in another criminal case of similar nature, but in that case, he is already on bail.

5. He further submits that the present petitioner was arrested after one month of the alleged occurrence, and the other co-accused-Sahil @ Gardela, Jaspreet Singh and Shivam @ Shiva, have been granted regular bail by the learned trial Court concerned itself, whereas bail application of the present petitioner was dismissed only on the ground that there was a recovery of a pistol and live cartridges from the present petitioner, otherwise, the role of the present petitioner is similar to that of other co-accused, who have been granted bail by the learned trial Court concerned.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

6. Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the asked for relief of grant of regular bail, and has filed a custody certificate qua the petitioner, which is taken on record, and, it reflects that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 5 months and 8 days as on today, and, he is involved in two other criminal cases, out of which one is of a similar nature whereas, the other is under the provisions of the Arms Act. However, in both the cases the petitioner is on bail.

7. He further, on instructions imparted to him by ASI Salwinder Singh, submits that after investigation the final report was submitted on dated 21.02.2023, and the prosecution has cited total 23 witnesses in the final report, and the trial is yet to start.

ANALYSIS

8. "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", 1977AIR 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 compulsoiy.

9. 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.

10. 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 as follows:-

30. In AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE (2d, Volume 8, p. 806, para 39), it is stated:

11. Also, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has insisted upon striking a perfect balance of sanctity of an individual's liberty as well as the interest of the society, in grant or refusing bail. The relevant