Chandigarh: In a significant observation highlighting the gravity of crimes committed in the name of "family honour," the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant regular bail to an accused involved in a double murder case. Justice Sumeet Goel, while dismissing the petition, remarked that offences of this nature do not just harm individuals but strike at the very foundation of public order and the collective conscience of society.
The court emphasized that in cases of "honour killing," granting bail prematurely could undermine the seriousness of the crime and potentially embolden others to take the law into their own hands.
The case dates back to October 2021 and carries the tragic hallmarks of a classic honour killing. According to the prosecution, the victim, Rohtash Singh, had married a woman named Suman in a court ceremony against the wishes of her family. Sensing a threat to their lives, the young couple had sought refuge at the house of a local resident, Sukhdev Singh, in village Ronta, Moga.
However, their attempt to start a new life was short-lived. On October 17, 2021, a group of approximately 15 to 16 people arrived in three vehicles. The group allegedly scaled the walls of the house where the couple was hiding, assaulted them, and abducted them in broad daylight.
The terror did not end there. Shortly after the abduction, the bodies of Rohtash and Suman were found abandoned in a street in village Sappan Wali, Fazilka district. The brutal nature of the double murder sent shockwaves through the region.
The petitioner, Chhinder Kumar (also known as Chindi), had been in custody since November 5, 2021. His legal counsel argued for his release on several grounds:
- Lack of Specific Role: It was argued that no specific violent act was attributed to him. He was allegedly just part of the crowd and was "roped in" based on general allegations.
- Prolonged Custody: The counsel pointed out that the accused had been in jail for over three years.
- Slow Trial: With only 2 out of 33 prosecution witnesses examined so far, the defense argued that the trial was moving at a "snail's pace," violating the right to a speedy trial.
Justice Sumeet Goel was not inclined to accept these arguments. The Court reiterated that while deciding bail in such heinous crimes, the "nature and gravity of the offence" outweigh individual liberty concerns like the length of custody.
1. The "Common Object" Principle The Court noted that since the accused was allegedly part of an "unlawful assembly" (under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC), the argument that he didn't personally strike the blow does not hold much weight at the bail stage. When a group acts with a "common object" to commit murder and abduction, every member can be held responsible for the result.
2. Protecting Witnesses A major concern for the Court was the safety of the witnesses. The State and the complainant expressed genuine fears that if the accused were released, they might influence or intimidate the remaining 31 witnesses, most of whom are yet to testify. The Court found these apprehensions to be "well-founded."
3. Societal Impact The judgment serves as a stern reminder that the judiciary views honour killings as a special category of extreme violence. Justice Goel noted that such acts are a direct challenge to the rule of law. The Court held that mere delay in trial cannot be the sole ground for bail when the crime is so "grave and heinous" that it carries the potential penalty of death or life imprisonment.
While denying bail, the High Court showed concern for the slow progress of the case. To balance the scales of justice, the Court directed the trial court in Moga to:
- Expedite the proceedings and endeavor to conclude the trial within one year.
- Submit progress reports to the Registrar General of the High Court every two months.
- The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) was also directed to ensure that witnesses are produced promptly to avoid further delays.
This ruling reinforces the legal precedent that "honour" can never be a justification for violence. By categorizing the crime as one that "strikes at the root of public conscience," the Punjab and Haryana High Court has signaled that accused persons in such cases will face a high threshold for bail, prioritizing societal safety and the integrity of the judicial process over the personal liberty of the alleged perpetrators.
Case Title: Chhinder Kumar @ Chindi @ Shindi v. State of Punjab
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel