Kulbir Singh Alias Kulvir Singh v. State of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 221+226 Date of decision: 11.07.2024

¶1CRM-M-15104-2024 KULBIR SINGH ALIAS KULVIR SINGH     ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB        ...Respondent

¶2 CRM-M-25107-2024 DAMANJIT KAUR        ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB        ...Respondent

3.        CRM-M-31210-2024 JANG SINGH    ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB        ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-15104-2024 & CRM-M-31210-2024. Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate with Mr. Shah Punj, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-25107-2024. Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate for the complainant in CRM-M-31210-2024. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral)

¶1In   the   aforementioned   three   petitions,   the   petitioners   craves indulgence of this Court, for being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.05 dated 23.01.2024 under Section 306 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sandaur, District Malerkotla,  therefore, being amenable by common decision, same are taken up together.

¶2Status report by way of affidavit dated 08.07.2024, of Sh. Gurdev Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Malerkotla, District Malerkotla has been filed on behalf of respondent-State.  The same is taken on record.  Copy of the same has been supplied to the opposite counsel.

¶3Before adverting to the facts and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties concerned, it is relevant to give detail, inter se relationship between the petitioner and the deceased-Surender Singh.  In the instant matter Surender Singh has committed suicide on 23.01.2024.  The petitioner Damanjit Kaur, petitioner in  CRM-M-25107-2024, is a legally wedded wife of deceased Surender Singh, and Kulbir Singh @ Kulvir Singh, petitioner in CRM-M-15104-2024, is the son of maternal uncle of Damanjit Kaur, whereas, Jang Singh petitioner in CRM-M-31210-2024,  is the maternal uncle of Damanjit Kaur. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER

¶4The prosecution agency was set into motion on a complaint made by one Baljinder Singh, son of Gurnam Singh, who is real elder brother of deceased Surender Singh.  The relevant extract of the complaint, reads as under:- "Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and i am posted in Electricity Department as Lineman. We were two brothers. I am the eldest and Surinder Singh, aged about 35 years was younger to

- #-

me. We both brothers are married and were living separately in Village Naudharani. The marriage of my brother Surinder Singh was solemnized about 4 years ago with Dashanjit Kaur daughter of Daljit Singh, resident of Ukmi Daundal, P.S. Malaud, District Ludhiana but there is no child from the said wedlock, About 7 months ago, he went in foreign country at Iran in relation to some work and business. On

14.01.2024, my mother Ranjit Kaur expired and on 19.01.2024, there was ceremony of Akhand Path/Bhog and in relation to the same, my brother reached here in the village on 16.01.2024 from foreign country. He wanted to go abroad back after attending the Bhog ceremony but his wife Dashanjit Kaur and in:laws family were restraining him to go abroad due to the same my brother was living in tension. Yesterday, i.e. on 22.01.2024 this issue was discussed in village Naudharani at Panchayati level. During the talks in this regard, his father:in:law Daljit Singh and maternal father:in:law Jang Singh argued with my brother and they mounted pressure upon him while restraining him to go foreign country and due to the same my brother became more tensed. Today, my brother Surinder Singh went out from the house at about 12.00 P.M. Thereafter, at about 4.00 Ρ.Μ. noon time) Sandeep Singh who is son of my uncle disclosed me through his mobile number 97812:36376 at my M. No. 96466:9342 that our brother Surinder Singh has committed suicide by hanging him from the tree near the drain of Adamwal Village and he is still hanging with the tree. Upon which, I along with my cousin Harpreet Singh and Bharpoor Singh, residents of Naudharani mached at the spot, where the number of passersby were assembled. With the help of the passersby, the dead body of my brother was removed from tree and a vehicle was arranged and then we reached Civil Hospital, Malerkotla where the Doctor in Emergency examined my brother and declared him as dead. Father:in:law, namely, Daljit Singh and maternal father:in:law Jang Singh and Dashanjit Kaur who is his wife used to harass my brother Surinder Singh

unnecessarily and they used to restrain him from going in foreign country. Due to the same and the harassment caused to him by aforesaid persons, my brother Surinder Singh has committed suicide by hanging himself from the tree and in this way he has finished his life. Strict legal action be taken against them. I have got recorded my statement to you, I have heard and read it, the same is correct. The said statement was endorsed by Harpreet Singh son of Bharpoor Singh, resident of Naudharani. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

¶5The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the hereinabove extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-

(i)   The allegations as alleged in the FIR does not attract the provisions of Section 306 IPC;

(ii)  Merely counselling/advising or restraining the relative to go abroad would never attract the ingredient of Section 107, which is one of the essential ingredients to put the petitioners to trial, for the penal provision of Section 306 IPC;

(iii) There are fake allegations against the present petitioners, as no specific role has been attributed to any of the petitioners;

(iv) Kulbir Singh @ Kulvir Singh, petitioner in CRM-M-15104-2024, Damanjit Kaur, petitioner  in  CRM-M-25107-2024,  &  Jang Singh petitioner in CRM-M-31210-2024, have suffered incarceration of more than 05 months, as on today.

(v) One of the co-accused i.e. Daljit Singh qua whom there are similar   allegations,   has   been   extended   the   relief   of   interim anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP

No.6275/2024 (Annexure P-4).

(vi) Out of the total 19 prosecution witnesses  cited in the final report, none has been examined till date. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL AND COMPLAINANT

¶6Per contra, the learned State counsel, who is assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vociferously opposed the grant of regular bail to the present petitioners, and submits that in fact all the petitioners along with co-accused Daljit Singh, harassed the deceased-Surender Singh to such an extent, that he was left with no other option, except to commit the suicide.   Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate for the complainant has also drawn attention of this Court to the suicide note.  The translation of the same reads as under:- "My   in-laws,   Damanjit   Kaur,   Jang   Singh,   and   Kulvir   Singh   are responsible for my death.  These people are threatening and harassing me. They should be punished strictly."

¶7Learned State counsel has placed on record the custody certificates of the petitioners, as issued by the Superintendent of Sub Jail Malerkotla.  The same are taken on record. A perusal of the custody certificate reveals that the Kulbir Singh @ Kulvir Singh, petitioner in CRM-M-15104-2024  has suffered incarceration of 05 months and 14 days, Damanjit Kaur, petitioner in CRM-M-25107-2024, has suffered incarceration of 05 months and 15 days, and Jang Singh petitioner in CRM-M-31210-2024, has suffered incarceration of 05 months and 12 days,  as on today. A perusal of the custody certificates further reveals that the petitioners are not involved in any other criminal case.  Learned State counsel on instructions, imparted to him by ASI

Manjit Singh, submits that after conclusion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., had already been filed qua the present petitioners on

20.03.2024, and the charges have been framed on 07.06.2024.   Learned State counsel further submits that out of the total 19 prosecution witnesses cited in the final report, none has been examined till date.

¶8A specific query was put to the learned State counsel regarding the suicide note, whether, the same was sent for forensic examination, and whether, any report  has been  received  in this regard, or not.   Learned State counsel  on instructions, imparted to him by ASI Manjit Singh, submits that though the suicide note has been sent for forensic examination, but the report has not been received yet. ANALYSIS

¶9Before embarking upon the process of evaluating the arguments addressed by the learned counsels for the parties and penning down any opinion upon the instant petition, it is deemed imperative to capture an overview of some significant legal propositions.

¶10"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.

- &-

¶113he ri,ht to a speed1 trial is one of the ri,hts of a detained person. ;owever, while decidin, application for re,$lar +ail, the Co$rts shall also ta*e into consideration the f$nda(ental precept of cri(inal %$rispr$dence, which is =the pres$(ption of innocence>, +esides the ,ravit1 of offence?s@ involved. 1!. 'n AE!r#a(sh Singh Si##ia v3 State of P!n+a#C' (%<D0) 0 SCC 262 at 2D6/2DD' the p$rpose of ,rantin, +ail is set o$t +1 the ;on<+le S$pre(e Co$rt with ,reat felicit1 as follows:- "27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the right to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting that as long back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court of Calcutta in Nagendra v. King Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 (479, 480) that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. In two other cases which, significantly, are the 'Meerut Conspiracy cases observations are to be found regarding the right to bail which deserve a special mention. In K.N. Joglekar v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Allahabad 504 (SB) it was observed, while dealing with Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code, that it conferred upon the Sessions Judge or the High Court wide powers to grant bail which were not handicapped by the restrictions in the preceding Section 497 which corresponds to the present Section

¶437It was observed by the Court that there was no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 498 and that the only principle which was established was that the discretion should be exercised judiciously. In Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 at p. 358 it was said that it was very unwise to make an attempt

to lay down any particular rules which bind the High Court, having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the discretion of the Court unfettered. According to the High Court, the variety of cases that may arise from time to time cannot be safely classified and it is dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases and to say that in particular classes a bail may be granted but not in other classes. It was observed that the principle to be deduced from the various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent person must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence. XX XX XX

¶29In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for the Court, that "there cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail".

¶30In American Jurisprudence (2d, Vol. 8, page 806, para 39) it is stated : "Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end." It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or

as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail." 1#. Also, in AE!di(anti   :arasi*h!l!   and   others   Bers!s   P!#lic Prosec!tor' 7igh Co!rt of ;ndhra PradeshC' %<&D ;IR (S!pre*e Co!rt) 10<' the ;on<+le S$pre(e Co$rt, spea*in, thro$,h 4rishna '1er, 6., has en$nciated the principles of +ail th$s : "9. Thus the legal principle and practice validate the court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record:particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habitual, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the member of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.

¶10The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even:handed and geared to he goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi: focal interests of justice to the individual involved and society affected.

¶11We must weight the contrary factors to answer the test the reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare of present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted. mechanical

detention should be demoted. In the United States, which has a constitutional perspective close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on the inhuman, of our sub:jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a policy favouring release justly sensible.

¶12A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti:criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offences while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise', should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our Constitution. 1#. Aiewed fro( this perspective, we ,ain a +etter insi,ht into the r$les of the ,a(e. Bhen a person, char,ed with a ,rave offence, has +een ac:$itted at a sta,e, has the inter(ediate ac:$ittal pertinence to a +ail plea when the appeal +efore this Co$rt pendsC Des, it has. 3he panic which (i,ht pro(pt the acc$sed to %$(p the ,a$ntlet of %$stice is less, havin, en%o1ed the confidence of the co$rtEs verdit once. Conc$rrent holdin,s of ,$ilt have the opposite effect. A,ain, the ,ro$nd for denial of provisional

release becomes weaker when the fact stares us in the face that a fair finding if that be so - of innocence has been recorded by one court. It may not be conclusive, for the judgment of acquittal may be   ex   facie   wrong,   the   likelihood   of   desperate   reprisal,   if enlarged, may be a deterrent and his own safety may be more in prison than in the vengeful village where feuds have provoked the violent offence. It depends. Antecedents of the man and socio-geographical circumstances have a bearing only from this angle. Police exaggerations of prospective misconduct of the accused, if enlarged, must be soberly sized up lest danger of excesses and injustice creep subtly into the discretionary curial technique. Bad record and policy prediction of criminal prospects to invalidate the bail plea are admissible in principle but shall not stampede the court into a complacent refusal."

¶14This Court has examined the instant petition on the touchstone of the hereinabove extracted settled legal principle(s) of law and is of the considered opinion that the instant petition is amenable for being allowed.

¶15The reason for forming the above inference emanates from the factum that:- (i) Whether the allegations as alleged in the FIR, constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC is a moot question, which is to be adjudicated by the learned trial Court concerned, at an appropriate stage; (ii)  Kulbir Singh @ Kulvir Singh, petitioner in CRM-M-15104-2024  has suffered incarceration of 05 months and 14 days, Damanjit Kaur, petitioner in CRM-M-25107-2024, has suffered incarceration of 05 months and 15 days, and Jang Singh petitioner in CRM-M-31210-2024, has suffered incarceration of 05 months and 12 days,   as on today; (iii) Out of the total 19 prosecution witnesses cited in the final report, none has been examined till date; (iv) Petitioners are not involved in any other criminal case, (v) No fruitful purpose would

be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars,  (vi) Trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon. FINAL ORDER

¶16Considering the hereinabove made discussion, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits and circumstances of the present case(s), the present petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶17However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on the merits of the trial, and is only meant for deciding the present petitions.

¶18All the three petitions stands disposed of.

¶19All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI)

11.07.2024                                   JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No