The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a 69-year-old man accused in an attempt to murder case, holding that the primary rationale for pre-trial detention is substantially diminished when the prosecution’s evidentiary phase is virtually complete.
Justice Sumeet Goel, presiding over the case, allowed the second bail petition filed by Harjinder Singh, who has been in custody for over three years. The Court observed that with only one prosecution witness left to be examined, the apprehension of the petitioner influencing the case is “rendered largely moot.”
The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for regular bail in FIR No. 44 dated 11.07.2022, registered under Sections 307, 324, 323, 506, and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Maloud, Ludhiana.
Background of the Case
The FIR was registered based on the statement of Tirath Singh, the nephew of the petitioner. According to the statement, on the night of July 10, 2022, an altercation occurred after the petitioner, Harjinder Singh, allegedly used abusive language towards the complainant’s mother. Later that night, when the complainant’s father, Nachhattar Singh, went to lock his shop, the petitioner and his son, Angrej Singh, allegedly came out of their adjoining shop.
The FIR alleges that Harjinder Singh, armed with a ‘rambi’ (a leather-cutting tool), attacked Nachhattar Singh with an intention to kill him, causing a grievous injury to his stomach that exposed his intestines. Further attacks were allegedly made on his face, head, and arm. The complaint states that while Nachhattar Singh was on the ground, the petitioner’s son kicked him, and the petitioner attacked him again on his back. The injured was subsequently hospitalized.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Sukhjit Singh, argued:
- The petitioner has been in custody since July 12, 2022.
- The complainant’s side was the aggressor, and the petitioner acted in his right to defence.
- The alleged weapon, a ‘rambi’, is an ordinary tool related to the petitioner’s vocation of slipper-making.
- The prosecution has already led its evidence, with only one government doctor remaining to be examined. Therefore, there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing witnesses.
- The petitioner is 69 years old and has no criminal antecedents.
Counsel for the State, Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, argued:
- The allegations are serious in nature.
- This is a second bail petition, and there has been no change in circumstances to warrant its consideration.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Sumeet Goel, after hearing both parties, noted that the petitioner has been in continuous custody since July 12, 2022, and out of 9 prosecution witnesses, 8 have already been examined.
The Court observed that with the prosecution evidence nearing its end, the justification for continued incarceration is weakened. “The apprehension of the petitioner influencing or tampering with the prosecution witnesses, a common ground for denial of bail, is rendered largely moot in such circumstances,” the judgment stated.
Invoking a legal maxim, the Court said, “As the venerable legal maxim goes ‘Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex’ when the reason for the law ceases, the law itself ceases duly encapsulates within its ambit, the factual milieu of the instant case.”
The judgment emphasized the paramount importance of the right to a fair trial, which includes the accused’s opportunity to present a robust defence. The Court noted that denying liberty at such an advanced stage of the trial could cripple the defence. “To effectively exercise this inalienable right to lead defense evidence, the physical liberty of the accused is often an essential factor,” Justice Goel observed.
The Court cited a Supreme Court judgment in ‘Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh’, 1978 AIR (SC) 429, which held:
“It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be demoted.”
Addressing the State’s argument that this was a second bail petition, the Court found that the “extended custody of the petitioner, and the trial having not culminated till date” constituted a sufficient change in circumstances. The Court referred to its own dicta in Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and Anr., which lays down principles for entertaining successive bail petitions, requiring a “substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.”
The Court concluded that “further detention of the petitioner as an under trial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of Harjinder Singh on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. The Court also imposed the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted.
- The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
- The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
- The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
- The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
- The petitioner shall provide his cell-phone number to the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO and shall not change it without prior permission.
- The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
The Court clarified that the State or complainant would be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail if any of these conditions are breached. It was also stated that “Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”
