IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT Gurlal Singh @Sunny State of Punjab [ CORAM: Argued by SURYA PARTAP SINGH petitioner under Section 483 of 2023’. It has been filed 23.02.2024 323, 506, 148, 149, 201 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur. 2. ‘Shamsher Singh’, stated by pm, when his son ‘Harmanpreet Singh’ white colour Verna car, being driven by ‘Jashan’, arrived there and ‘Jashan’ launched an attack upon ‘Harmanpreet Singh’ the above CRM-M-14549-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurlal Singh @Sunny VERSUS Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for bail is the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed with regard to a case arising out of 23.02.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 506, 148, 149, 201 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur. The abovementioned FIR came into being Shamsher Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as stated by the above-named complainant that on when his son ‘Harmanpreet Singh’ was present in front of his house, white colour Verna car, being driven by ‘Jashan’, arrived there and ‘Jashan’ launched an attack upon ‘Harmanpreet Singh’ the abovenamed assailant was joined by ‘Sukhpreet Singh’ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14549-2026(O&M) Reserved on : 20.03.2026 Pronounced on : 24.03.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG Punjab. ***** the second petition, filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.27 dated fence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506, 148, 149, 201 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was complainant that on 22.02.2024 at about 06:15 was present in front of his house, white colour Verna car, being driven by ‘Jashan’, arrived there and ‘Jashan’ launched an attack upon ‘Harmanpreet Singh’ with the help of steel rod and was joined by ‘Sukhpreet Singh’, who, too, was (O&M) Petitioner ..... Respondent filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated 341, 323, 506, 148, 149, 201 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar at the instance of only. It was 22.02.2024 at about 06:15 was present in front of his house, a white colour Verna car, being driven by ‘Jashan’, arrived there and ‘Jashan’ with the help of steel rod and , who, too, was GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document carrying an iron rod, and three other unknown persons named complainant, Singh’ suffered help, his nephew ‘Amandeep Singh’ and other neighbours and therefore, the abovementioned assailants fled from the spot extending 3. abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. 5. 6. the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: i) ii) iii) iv) CRM-M-14549-2026 (O&M) 2 carrying an iron rod, and three other unknown persons named complainant, in the abovementioned Singh’ suffered multiple injuries on his body help, his nephew ‘Amandeep Singh’ and other neighbours and therefore, the abovementioned assailants fled from the spot ending the threat to kill ‘Harmanpreet Singh’ in future. It is the further case of the prosecution that abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. Heard. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a : - that this is second petition for bail filed first petition for bail filed by the petitioner was than one year ago. From the date of dismissal of first petition, no significant progress in trial has taken place petitioner has got a right to maintain ii) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than two years; iii) that except one case under IPC, that, too, just after three days of the incident, no other case is pending against the petitioner; iv) that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital; 2 carrying an iron rod, and three other unknown persons. According to above in the abovementioned assault, his son ‘Harmanpreet on his body, and that when he screamed for help, his nephew ‘Amandeep Singh’ and other neighbours rushed to the spot, and therefore, the abovementioned assailants fled from the spot, while threat to kill ‘Harmanpreet Singh’ in future. It is the further case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the d carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a this is second petition for bail filed by the petitioner and the first petition for bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed more rom the date of dismissal of first petition, no significant progress in trial has taken place. Thus, the petitioner has got a right to maintain the present petition; the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more that except one case under Sections 458/427/506/148/149 , that, too, just after three days of the incident, no other case petitioner; the injured has already been discharged from the hospital; . According to above- assault, his son ‘Harmanpreet , and that when he screamed for rushed to the spot, , while in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a by the petitioner and the dismissed more rom the date of dismissal of first petition, . Thus, the the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more Sections 458/427/506/148/149 of , that, too, just after three days of the incident, no other case the injured has already been discharged from the hospital; GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document v) vi) vii) viii) ix) 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been 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 o does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in 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 CRM-M-14549-2026 (O&M) 3 v) that the weapon of offence has already been recovered nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vi) that the trial is not likely to be conclude of twenty six prosecution witnesses, only five have been examined so far; vii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose; viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial In the present case, the principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “ Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of crimina 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 is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in 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 3 the weapon of offence has already been recovered and thus, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of twenty six prosecution witnesses, only five have been the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. the principles of law laid down by in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,are also relevant, a fundamental postulate of crimina 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 ffences 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 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 and thus, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of d in near future, as out of twenty six prosecution witnesses, only five have been the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the principles of law laid down by the Dataram versus State of relevant, 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 ffences 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 is that the grant of 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document incarcerated and for longer pe 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 circum 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 circumstan 8. India in the case of ‘ Investigation and Another’, ( In the abovementioned case, it has been observed 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 applicatio 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 9. Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC India has observed that “ incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, CRM-M-14549-2026 (O&M) 4 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 circum 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 in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’, ( In the abovementioned case, it has been observed 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 applicatio 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 unitive 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 ‘ Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, 4 riods. 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 principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of 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 unitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, riods. 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 scribed 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 Supreme Court of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of are also relevant in this case. the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor ns 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 unitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy tri 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 10. 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 by Hon’ble Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354 11. involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to conclusion that the petitioner present petition deserves to be allowed. 12. case, the present petition is hereby to be released on bail on furnishing satisfaction of shall be subject to following conditions: (i) CRM-M-14549-2026 (O&M) 5 definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy tri 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 redibility 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 Cour 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 by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to usion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail present petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with 5 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 society and redibility 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 o 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 Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered personal bond and surety bond(s) to the . However the abovementioned concession he petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with al 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 redibility 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 t 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 mandated Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a , and that the Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the ordered to the . However the abovementioned concession indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (ii) (iii) 24.03.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-14549-2026 (O&M) 6 the 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 execution of bond, f the address to the Court concerned and , till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 6 the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority; shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and , till the final decision of the trial; that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts urnish , till the final decision of the trial; that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document