2024 (4) TMI 1270 - HC - Indian Laws

Murder Case Bail Denied: Serious Charges, Armed Firing Allegations Upheld, Expedited Trial Ordered

Balwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab

HC denied bail to petitioner in murder case, finding no material change in circumstances since previous bail rejection. Court emphasized the serious ... Entitlement to regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC, 1973 - serious charges including murder and related offences under the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act - false implication on account of party faction - HELD THAT:- It is a matter of record that the previous petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the CrPC was decided on merits and dismissed by a detailed order on 27.04.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Hon'ble the Supreme Court to impugn the order of dismissal passed by this Court. The said SLP was withdrawn before Hon'ble the Supreme Court as is evidenced from Annexure P-15. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. However, keeping in view the custody period of the petitioner, the trial Court is directed to make earnest efforts to expedite the trial and conclude it positively within the next five months from today. Needless to add, the defence would also cooperate in the expeditious conclusion of the trial. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case involving serious charges including murder and related offences under the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act.- Whether the petitioner has demonstrated any material change in circumstances since the dismissal of the previous bail petition decided on merits.- Whether parity can be claimed with co-accused persons who have been granted bail.- Whether the prolonged custody period of the petitioner warrants any relief in the form of bail or directions for expeditious trial.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISEntitlement to Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.The legal framework governing the grant of regular bail in serious offences is Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., which vests discretion in the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail to an accused in custody. The Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, evidence on record, likelihood of the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence, and the stage of the trial.The Court noted that the petitioner is implicated in a case involving grave offences including murder (Section 302 IPC), attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC), and various other serious charges under the IPC and Arms Act. The FIR and prosecution case allege active and armed participation by the petitioner in indiscriminate firing causing fatality and serious injuries.The Court observed that the petitioner had earlier filed three bail petitions, the last of which was dismissed on merits by a detailed order dated 27.04.2023. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP), which was subsequently withdrawn, indicating no successful challenge to the dismissal.The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner had not caused any injury to the deceased and only a minor injury to one injured witness, and that co-accused persons in similar positions had been granted bail. However, the Court found that the petitioner's involvement was more serious and he could not claim parity with co-accused whose injuries were less grave or who had not caused injury.Since no material change in circumstances was demonstrated post the dismissal of the previous petition, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to regular bail at this stage.Material Change in CircumstancesThe Court emphasized the principle that a subsequent bail application after dismissal on merits requires demonstration of a material change in circumstances. The petitioner failed to bring any fresh facts or developments to the Court's notice that would justify reconsideration of bail.The absence of any new evidence, change in health condition beyond what was stated, or any other factor that could mitigate the gravity of allegations or risk factors weighed against granting bail.Parity with Co-AccusedThe petitioner sought parity with two co-accused who had been released on bail. The Court analyzed the nature of injuries and role attributed to these co-accused. One co-accused had caused only a 'lalkara' (shout or challenge) without injury, while the other had caused a blunt injury attracting Section 324 IPC, which is less serious than the charges against the petitioner.The Court held that parity cannot be mechanically applied where the role and allegations against the accused differ significantly. The petitioner's active participation in firing causing fatality distinguished his case from the co-accused released on bail.Custody Period and Trial ExpeditiousnessWhile declining bail, the Court took note of the petitioner's prolonged custody since June 2020 and directed the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude it within five months. The Court underscored the necessity of balancing the accused's right to a speedy trial with the seriousness of the charges.The Court also called upon the defence to cooperate in the expeditious conclusion of the trial, recognizing the importance of timely justice both for the accused and the prosecution.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'It is a matter of record that the previous petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. was decided on merits and dismissed by a detailed order on 27.04.2023.''Learned senior counsel has failed to bring to the notice of this Court any material change of circumstances, subsequent to the dismissal of the previous petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. on 27.04.2023.''The petitioner cannot claim parity with the other two co-accused, who have been released on bail as one of them had not been attributed any injury but only a lalkara, whereas the other co-accused had been attributed a blunt injury attracting the mischief of Section 324 of the IPC.''In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner.''Keeping in view the custody period of the petitioner, the trial Court is directed to make earnest efforts to expedite the trial and conclude it positively within the next five months from today.'Core principles established include the necessity of demonstrating material change in circumstances for successive bail petitions after dismissal on merits, the non-application of parity where the accused's role and injuries caused differ significantly, and the balancing of the accused's custodial period with the need for expeditious trial without compromising the gravity of the charges.Final determination was the dismissal of the bail petition with directions for expeditious trial, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.