In a significant judgment liable to change the way bail is granted in assault cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that cruelty with which an accused acted is one of the factors required to be taken into consideration while deciding the pleas.
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, May 14
In a significant judgment liable to change the way bail is granted in assault cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that cruelty with which an accused acted is one of the factors required to be taken into consideration while deciding the pleas. An accused ordinarily should not to be granted bail if the Court was of the prima facie opinion that he was cruel in his conduct.
“Cruelty is one of the factors in deciding on bails. A cruel person is more likely to create a lot of insecurity in any society. Once the courts form a prima facie opinion that the accused acted with cruelty, such an accused ordinarily should not be granted bail, and if the courts deem it appropriate to grant, it must be after specifying the reasons for such an indulgence,” Justice Anoop Chitkara asserted.
The ruling came in a case where an “unarmed middle-aged person” was “brutally assaulted”. The matter was placed before Justice Chitkara’s Bench after Manish Singh, alias Golu, filed a petition against the UT of Chandigarh for grant of bail in an FIR registered on March 17, 2020, at the Sector 3 police station for theft, house trespass and other offences under Sections 323, 379, 452, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Sections 307 and 397 of the IPC on attempt to murder and another offence were added later on.
Taking up the matter, Justice Chitkara observed the complainant on March 17, 2020, informed the police that her husband went up to check after hearing noises from the roof. Two boys were there to steal copper wires. He sustained severe injuries and was hospitalised after they hit him on being confronted.
Justice Chitkara took note of the petitioner’s arguments that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to him and family. The Bench also recorded objections raised by the ztate counsel to the grant of bail.
Justice Chitkara added the contention on the complainant’s behalf was that the accused gave multiple blows to the victim on the face and head, and also penetrated a screwdriver in his eye. He remained admitted to the PGI. Despite the best medical care, the victim lost vision from an eye and suffered seizure. “The counsel referred to the medical records to establish that the victim lost his eye, skull and entire jaw had to be resurrected, and had to be given food through a tube inserted through his neck,” Justice Chitkara added.
Turning down the bail plea, Justice Chitkara asserted an analysis of the allegations and evidence collected did not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner. His matter did not fall in the category of cases where bail ought to be granted.
“In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail during the trial. Any observation made is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments,” Justice Chitkara concluded.
The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.
Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.
Most Read In 24 Hours
Don't Miss
View All
Top News
SC curbs ED’s powers of arrest
Rules agency can’t arrest an accused after special court tak...
CAA Modi’s guarantee, no one can dare repeal it: PM
Takes on INDIA bloc, calls it ‘hypocritical, communal’
