Punjab-Haryana High Court
Intajar Alias Lucky vs State Of Punjab on 1 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056597
CRM-M-21948-2025 -1-
231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21948-2025
DECIDED ON: 01.05.2025
INTAJAR ALIAS LUCKY
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Sartaj Singh Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the 2nd time under
Section 483 BNSS, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.0032
(Annexure P-1), dated 11.02.2022, under Sections 302/34 of IPC, 1860 (Section
392/411/449 and 509 of IPC, 1860 added later on) registered at Police Station
Sadar Kharar, District SAS Nagar.
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
“Copy of Statement, Statement of Swaranjit Kaur wife of Dharam
Singh, resident of Village Chak Sarai, Police Station: Sadar, Khanna,
District: Ludhiana, aged about 48 years Mobile No. 98726-65355.
Stated that I am a resident of the above-mentioned address and1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 02-05-2025 11:58:42 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056597CRM-M-21948-2025 -2-
working as a Teacher in Punjab Public Senior Secondary School,
Rupalo. We are three siblings, I am eldest of all, younger to me is my
brother Hardeep Singh, who along with his family lives in Australia
with his family abroad, younger to him is my sister Gurpreet Kaur,
who also lives with his family abroad in Italy. My mother Karnail
Kaur had died in the year 2008, my father Rangi Singh after retiring
as Superintendent from the High Court, was living alone in his
ancestral home at Village Bhagomajra and for their household work,
he has employed/ kept two Maids, namely, Anguri and Rajinder Kaur,
who are also residents of Village Bhagomajra. That both these Malds
were doing the work of cleaning of house and pareparing the meals
etc. My father was five brothers, out of which Harkesh Singh and
Rajinder Singh were living separately along with their families in the
Village. Harkesh Singh has since died. Two brothers of my father are
Lachhman Singh and Jagdish Singh, who are living at Mohali, they
have also since expired. After the retirement of my father, my father
was doing the work of Western Money Transfer and L.I.C. at their
shop at Landran. Due to outbreak of CORONO Pandemic, he had
closed his shop at Landran, then he started working from home and
he was having monetary transactions with the residents and
acquaintances in the. village, regarding which only he was having
knowledge, that he was keeping the accounts in his personal diary, my
father was also the Treasurer of Gurudwara Sahib of Village
Bhagomajra. Yester dated 10.02.2022, at about 05.00 p.m. in the
evening, I had called father Rangl Singh at his Mobile Number
97814- 23980 to know about his well-being, but his phone was
switched office. Today on dated 11.02.2022, my sister-in-law
(‘Bhabhi’) Baljinder Kaur wife of Himmat Singh, resident of Village
Bhagomajra through What’sApp Call from her phone 98145-15619
told me that i the time was about 08.37 a.m., that, “some incident has
occurred with your father Rangi Singh, you should reach Village
Bhagomajra at the earliest”, on which I along with my husband –
Dharam Singh went to our Village Bhagomajra and on coming there,
we came to know that my father Rangi Singh had died and my father2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 02-05-2025 11:58:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056597CRM-M-21948-2025 -3-
Rangi Singh fell down in the kitchen and the blood oozed out from his
head and from his head, the turban was put off and shoe of his left
foot was also took off and near his body, one cushion of Sofa and
Burner of Gas Hearth were lying, that in the adjoining room, the lock
of Cupboard was opened, which it seems, was searched and the
articles were lying scattered. That the murder of my father Rangi
Singh has been committed by some unidentified person/ persons, by
pressing him with Cushlon of Sofa and stopping his breathing and by
causing an injury in his head, was committed with an intention of
looting and snatching, against whom appropriate legal action be
taken.’
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case and he not even present at the time of
alleged occurrence. The attention of this Court has been drawn to an order dated
25.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court in CRM-M-57997-2023 vide
which main accused has already been enlarged on regular bail. He contends that
the petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2022, wherein investigation is complete
and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has filed the custody
certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to which, the
petitioner is behind bars for 3 years 2 months and 13 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer
opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the petitioner has actively
participated in the commissioning of offence, as there are call connections
between him and the deceased.
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 02-05-2025 11:58:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056597
CRM-M-21948-2025 -4-
4. Analysis
Considering the facts that the petitioner has already suffered
incarceration of 3 years, 2 months and 13 and is a person of clean antecedents and
it is a case of circumstantial evidence as the petitioner has been nominated later on
after the mobile phone of the deceased was examined and on the basis of having
call connections between the deceased and the present petitioner, the petitioner
was nominated in the FIR. In addition to the fact that investigation is complete,
charges have been framed on 09.09.2022 and out of total 28 prosecution witnesses,
10 have been examined so far, meaning thereby conclusion of trial shall take
considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner
behind bars for uncertain period, wherein “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”
and it would also violate the principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious
disposal under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been time and again
discussed by this Court, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court
passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 131. 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. 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, the4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 02-05-2025 11:58:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056597CRM-M-21948-2025 -5-
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
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 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) SCALE5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 02-05-2025 11:58:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056597CRM-M-21948-2025 -6-
609 going back to the days of the Magna 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 “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another“, SLP
(Crl.) No.8523/2024. Relevant paras of the said judgment reads as under:-
“7. An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried
trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to prepare for
the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would
infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
8. It is not for nothing the Author Oscar Wilde in “The Ballad of
Reading Gaol”, wrote the following poignant lines while being
incarcerated:
“I know not whether Laws be right,
Or whether Laws be wrong;
All that we know who be in jail
Is that the wall is strong;
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 02-05-2025 11:58:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056597CRM-M-21948-2025 -7-
And that each day is like a year,
A year whose days are long.”
5. Relief:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby
directed to be released on regular bail on 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)
01.05.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 02-05-2025 11:58:43 :::