CRM-M-4925-202 217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sahil State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab. Surya Partap Singh, J. 1. This petition for bail is the Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 1860’ (Section 149 IPC added later on) District Amritsar Rural, Punjab 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being Kumar’ son of Harikrishan Lal It was alleged by the complainant that his son, namely ‘Ankit Bawa’ was working as a Labourer in a factory known as ‘Sanj Private Limited’, Mehta Road, New Focal Point, Amritsar. According to complainant, his son was havi with Jatinder Singh alias Kalu 27.03.2024 his son was called by Jatinder Singh alias Kalu 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab. -.- Surya Partap Singh, J. This petition for bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. commission of offence punishable under Section(s) (Section 149 IPC added later on), Police Station District Amritsar Rural, Punjab. The abovementioned FIR came into being Kumar’ son of Harikrishan Lal, hereinafter being It was alleged by the complainant that his son, namely ‘Ankit Bawa’ was working Labourer in a factory known as ‘Sanj Private Limited’, Mehta Road, New Focal Point, Amritsar. According to complainant, his son was havi with Jatinder Singh alias Kalu, who was a drug addict. As per complainant, on 27.03.2024 his son was called by Jatinder Singh alias Kalu -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4925-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.04.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 44 dated 28.03.2024 for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 302 of the Indian Penal Code, , Police Station Police Station Kamboj, The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘‘Sushil , hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only It was alleged by the complainant that his son, namely ‘Ankit Bawa’ was working Labourer in a factory known as ‘Sanj Private Limited’, Mehta Road, New Focal Point, Amritsar. According to complainant, his son was having friendship a drug addict. As per complainant, on 27.03.2024 his son was called by Jatinder Singh alias Kalu in day time, and that till under been filed for the ndian Penal Code, Police Station Kamboj, ‘Sushil referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was alleged by the complainant that his son, namely ‘Ankit Bawa’ was working Labourer in a factory known as ‘Sanj Private Limited’, Mehta Road, New ng friendship a drug addict. As per complainant, on and that till TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4925-202 04:00 P.M. on 28.03.2024 the whereabouts of his son were not known. It was further stated by the complainant that at about 04:00 P.M. on 28.03.2024 a crowd had gathered on the road near canal in village Udhian, and when they they found that complainant further the intention to kill him because he was upset due to meeting of his son with Jatinder Singh alias Kalu. It is the case of prosecution that in view of above mention investigation taken up. 3. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he has been falsely impl the petitioner, there is on the basis of an assumption that the petitioner was annoyed due to by the complainant against the meeting of his son with the petitioner, the petitioner is being subjected to prolong incarceration. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, any convincing and reliable evidence does not exist to establish between the commission of crime and the petitioner, and that the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of almost two years & twenty counsel for the petitioner that during the above mentioned period of almost two years & twenty- not been framed. 4. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the charge i 2026 (O&M) 04:00 P.M. on 28.03.2024 the whereabouts of his son were not known. It was ther stated by the complainant that at about 04:00 P.M. on 28.03.2024 a crowd had gathered on the road near canal in village Udhian, and when they they found that the dead body of his son, Ankit Bawa complainant further alleged that Jatinder Singh alias Kalu had called his son with intention to kill him because he was upset due to son with Jatinder Singh alias Kalu. It is the case of prosecution that in view of above mentioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no eye-witness account in the present case on the basis of an assumption that the petitioner was annoyed due to by the complainant against the meeting of his son with the petitioner, the petitioner is being subjected to prolong incarceration. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, any convincing and reliable evidence does not exist to establish between the commission of crime and the petitioner, and that the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of two years & twenty-two days. It has also been pointed out by learned e petitioner that during the above mentioned period of almost two -two days, there is no progress in the trial as even the charge has not been framed. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the charge is framed, thereafter, the list of witnesses shows that 19 -2- 04:00 P.M. on 28.03.2024 the whereabouts of his son were not known. It was ther stated by the complainant that at about 04:00 P.M. on 28.03.2024 a crowd had gathered on the road near canal in village Udhian, and when they reached there Ankit Bawa, was lying there. The Jatinder Singh alias Kalu had called his son with intention to kill him because he was upset due to his resistance against the son with Jatinder Singh alias Kalu. It is the case of prosecution that ed statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he icated in the present case. According to learned counsel for witness account in the present case, and that merely on the basis of an assumption that the petitioner was annoyed due to the resistance by the complainant against the meeting of his son with the petitioner, the petitioner is being subjected to prolong incarceration. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, any convincing and reliable evidence does not exist to establish link between the commission of crime and the petitioner, and that the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of . It has also been pointed out by learned e petitioner that during the above mentioned period of almost two two days, there is no progress in the trial as even the charge has It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that s framed, thereafter, the list of witnesses shows that 19 04:00 P.M. on 28.03.2024 the whereabouts of his son were not known. It was ther stated by the complainant that at about 04:00 P.M. on 28.03.2024 a crowd there The Jatinder Singh alias Kalu had called his son with resistance against the son with Jatinder Singh alias Kalu. It is the case of prosecution that ed statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he icated in the present case. According to learned counsel for merely, resistance by the complainant against the meeting of his son with the petitioner, the petitioner is being subjected to prolong incarceration. According to learned counsel for the link between the commission of crime and the petitioner, and that the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of . It has also been pointed out by learned e petitioner that during the above mentioned period of almost two two days, there is no progress in the trial as even the charge has It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that s framed, thereafter, the list of witnesses shows that 19 TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4925-202 prosecution witnesses have to be examined by the prosecution, and that recording of their testimonies will definitely consume a lot of time. While claiming that due to delay in trial, the fundamenta Constitution of India is being violated, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for the release of petitioner on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are very specifi son of complainant. As per learned State counsel, in view of the gravity of above mentioned offence, duly supported with reliable evidence, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail. 6. It has been further contended by learned State counsel that during the course of investigation on custodial interrogation of the petitioner he had suffered a disclosure statement three more persons, namely Charanjit Singh, Singh alias Bagha and thereafter, they entered into arguments which led to thrashed the dec the above mentioned evidence the commission of crime. 7. The record has been perused carefully. 8. A perusal of record shows that in relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a i) ii) 2026 (O&M) prosecution witnesses have to be examined by the prosecution, and that recording of their testimonies will definitely consume a lot of time. While claiming that due to delay in trial, the fundamental right of life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India is being violated, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for the release of petitioner on bail. Per contra, the learned State counsel has argued that the allegations inst the petitioner are very specific with regard to commission of son of complainant. As per learned State counsel, in view of the gravity of above mentioned offence, duly supported with reliable evidence, the petitioner is not the benefit of bail. It has been further contended by learned State counsel that during the course of investigation on custodial interrogation of the petitioner he had suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he confessed that he along with the deceas three more persons, namely Charanjit Singh, Lovejit Singh alias Jehrila Singh alias Bagha and Jatinder Singh alias Kallu thereafter, they entered into arguments which led to thrashed the deceased which led to his death. According to learned State counsel, the above mentioned evidence prima facie proves the commission of crime. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of almost two years & twenty-two days that there is no eye-witness acco of petitioner in the commission of crime; -3- prosecution witnesses have to be examined by the prosecution, and that recording of their testimonies will definitely consume a lot of time. While claiming that due l right of life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India is being violated, the learned counsel for the petitioner has Per contra, the learned State counsel has argued that the allegations c with regard to commission of murder of son of complainant. As per learned State counsel, in view of the gravity of above mentioned offence, duly supported with reliable evidence, the petitioner is not It has been further contended by learned State counsel that during the course of investigation on custodial interrogation of the petitioner he had suffered a wherein he confessed that he along with the deceased and Lovejit Singh alias Jehrila, Dilbagh Jatinder Singh alias Kallu had consumed liquor and thereafter, they entered into arguments which led to a scuffle, and that they eased which led to his death. According to learned State counsel, proves the involvement of petitioner in The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of almost two days; witness account to prove the involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime; prosecution witnesses have to be examined by the prosecution, and that recording of their testimonies will definitely consume a lot of time. While claiming that due l right of life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India is being violated, the learned counsel for the petitioner has Per contra, the learned State counsel has argued that the allegations murder of the son of complainant. As per learned State counsel, in view of the gravity of above mentioned offence, duly supported with reliable evidence, the petitioner is not It has been further contended by learned State counsel that during the course of investigation on custodial interrogation of the petitioner he had suffered a ed and , Dilbagh had consumed liquor and scuffle, and that they eased which led to his death. According to learned State counsel, the involvement of petitioner in the -:- that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of almost unt to prove the involvement TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4925-202 iii) iv) v) vi) vii) viii ix) 9. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “ another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, observed that “ presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law wh a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence 2026 (O&M) that the entire prosecution case is resting upon the plea that the petitioner has suffered a disclosure statement. The above mentioned disclosure statement was suffered by the pet when he was in police custody and therefore, for want of discovery of any fact pertaining to above mentioned case, prima facie the above mentioned disclosure/confessional statement seems to be hit by Section 23 of Bharatiya Saksharta Adhiniyam, 2023. that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; that the trial is not likely to be concluded in of total 19 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined so far; that further detention of petitioner is not likely to serve any purpose; ) that there is no criminal history of the petitioner with regard to involvement in any hurt case; viii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law wh a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence -4- that the entire prosecution case is resting upon the plea that the petitioner has suffered a disclosure statement. The above mentioned disclosure statement was suffered by the petitioner when he was in police custody and therefore, for want of discovery of any fact pertaining to above mentioned case, the above mentioned disclosure/confessional statement seems to be hit by Section 23 of Bharatiya Saksharta that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has that further detention of petitioner is not likely to serve any that there is no criminal history of the petitioner with regard to nvolvement in any hurt case; that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail the er will not participate/cooperate in the trial.. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and are also relevant, wherein it has been a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law wh a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence that the entire prosecution case is resting upon the plea that the petitioner has suffered a disclosure statement. The above itioner when he was in police custody and therefore, for want of discovery of any fact pertaining to above mentioned case, the above mentioned disclosure/confessional statement seems to be hit by Section 23 of Bharatiya Saksharta that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of as out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has that further detention of petitioner is not likely to serve any that there is no criminal history of the petitioner with regard to that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail the In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and relevant, wherein it has been a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4925-202 is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge cons been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail t in the circumstances of a case 10. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘ Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, case, it has been observed that “ abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice 11. Recently, in the case of ‘ Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to 2026 (O&M) that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and 022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of sgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to -5- that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion idering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect o an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of , which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion idering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect o an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of , which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4925-202 seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian soci valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently 12. To elucidate f fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 13. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions: (i) 2026 (O&M) seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the -6- seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for ety and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases urther, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to ot directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for ety and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases urther, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to ot directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4925-202 (ii) (iii) April 23, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2026 (O&M) facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority; (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execu the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -7- facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority; that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to tion of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document