[Farmers Protest] Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Protestor Accused Of Breaking Barricades, Attacking Police At Shambhu Border

The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Tuesday, granted bail to farmers protester, Navdeep Singh arrested in March for allegedly breaking barricades at Shambhu border in connivance with other protestors, during the enforcement of order under Section 144 of CrPC.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered as guilty till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, trial is likely to take long time in the light of the fact that out of 52 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. Detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is against the principle “Bail is a rule, jail is an exception” as elucidated in the judgement of Apex Court in “Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another;, (2018) 3 SCC 22”."

Singh was arrested for attempt to murder and other Sections of IPC including 147, 149, 186, 188, 332, 352 of IPC, and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and under Section 8B of National Highway Act, 1956 registered at Ambala police station.

The senior advocate appearing for Singh argued that investigation is complete, challan stands presented in May and conclusion of trial will take long time to conclude as out of 52 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. He asserted that similarly situated co-accused- Gurkeerat has also been granted bail by the trial Court.

Opposing the bail, the State counsel submitted that the petitioner is involved in one more FIR also, however, he did not controvert the submissions made by Senior counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated co-accused- Gurkeerat has also been granted bail by the trial Court.

After hearing the submissions, while noting that, challan is presented in May and the petitioner has already suffered sufficient period in custody i.e. 3 months and 15 days and co-accused- Gurkeerat has also been granted bail by the trial Court on 06.06.2024, the Court said it "do not find any reason to deny the petitioner concession of bail."

Justice Moudgil highlighted, while deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long.

Reliance was place on Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another”, [1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 634] to underscore that, Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.

The Court further added that, as per petitioner's own case, he is involved in as many as 15 more cases and out of those 15 cases, in six cases he stands acquitted and in three cases investigation is still going on.

"All the cases are on the same lines, which seems to have been registered within close proximity on the same set of allegations. Moreover, all the cases have been registered in Ambala District only, which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the petitioner is being dragged in all those cases falsely. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the concession of bail," the judge opined.

In the light of the above, the Court granted the relief of regular bail.

Mr. R.S. Bains, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

Title: NAVDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 259

Click here to read/download the order