Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Sr. No.: 225 Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-32469 of 2025 Date of Decision: July 07, 2025 Raman Kumar State of Punjab VERSUS ..... PETITIONER(S) ..... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL PRESENT: - Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bokolia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (Oral) 1. Relief sought The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to
Facts
the petitioner in FIR No.148 dated 22.07.2023 under Sections 302, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Ajnala, District Amritsar. 2. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no direct evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the death of deceased. Investigation is complete and he has already undergone 1 year 11 months and 3 days. Challan presented to the Court on 21.10.2023, charges framed on 10.04.2024 and there are total 22 witnesses in number, out of which only one has been examined so far. It is further contended that he is not a habitual offender, therefore prays for grant of regular bail. On behalf of the State On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the AVIN KUMAR 2025.07.08 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CRM-M-32469-2025 [2] custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that the offence allegedly committed is serious in nature and in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. 3. Analysis Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 1 year, 11 months and 3 days, for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration and investigation stands completed; added with the fact that co-accused Amrit Kaur has already been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2024 passed in CRM-M-65112 of 2023. As per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan was presented on 21.10.2023, charged framed on 10.04.2024, and total cited witnesses are 22 in number, out of which only one has been examined which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. AVIN KUMAR 2025.07.08 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CRM-M-32469-2025 [3] However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not AVIN KUMAR 2025.07.08 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CRM-M-32469-2025 [4] absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to
Legal Reasoning
social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658 6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609 going back to the days of the Magna AVIN KUMAR 2025.07.08 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CRM-M-32469-2025 [5] Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days. 7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.” Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in “Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna”, (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or AVIN KUMAR 2025.07.08 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. CRM-M-32469-2025 [6] apprehension of threat to the complainant. 4. DECISION: In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on regular bail on him furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) Judge July 07, 2025 avin Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Whether Reportable: Yes/ No Yes/ No AVIN KUMAR 2025.07.08 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.