CRM-M-4208-202 216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Harbhajan Singh State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Harsh Chopra Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab. Surya Partap Singh, J. 1. This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. commission of offence puni Penal Code, Police Station 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being Singh, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that ‘Paramjit Singh’ Village Dhoomcherri and di visited the house of Avtar Singh parked outside the house, of blood, with his hands and feet tied with 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Harbhajan Singh VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Mr. Harsh Chopra, 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 Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. commission of offence punishable under Sections Penal Code, Police Station Morinda, District Ropar, Punjab. The abovementioned FIR came into being , hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the named complainant that on 24.02.2004 at about 7:00 PM his Paramjit Singh’, had gone to meet Avatar Singh (accused in this case) Village Dhoomcherri and did not return thereafter. As per complainant, when he visited the house of Avtar Singh, he found the motor the house, and that Paramjit Singh was lying on the floor in a pool of blood, with his hands and feet tied with a cloth -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4208-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.04.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. This petition for bail is the first 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.24 dated 24.02.2004, for the shable under Sections 302, 120-B, 148/149 of Indian Morinda, District Ropar, Punjab. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Z , hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the on 24.02.2004 at about 7:00 PM his son, namely had gone to meet Avatar Singh (accused in this case) at d not return thereafter. As per complainant, when he , he found the motor-cycle of Paramjit Singh and that Paramjit Singh was lying on the floor in a pool a cloth inside the house of Avtar Singh petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed , for the of Indian Zora , hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the son, namely at his d not return thereafter. As per complainant, when he cycle of Paramjit Singh and that Paramjit Singh was lying on the floor in a pool inside the house of Avtar Singh. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4208-202 The complainant further stated that Amar Singh with a sword, J herein) with stick and Paramjit Singh and incident, Paramjit Singh 3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to the prosecution during the course of investigation, the petitioner was found to be innocent and t petitioner was not prosecuted. 4. It is relevant to mention here that the trial commenced against the other accused and Cr.P.C was filed trial Court summoned the present petitioner as one the accused in the present case. 5. Heard. 6. The record has been perused carefully. 7. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than months and 13 days ii) that iii) that the petitione and therefore likely to serve any purpose iv) that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be rec petitioner; 2026 (O&M) The complainant further stated that Amar Singh Jaspinder Singh with stick and Harbhajan Singh ( herein) with stick and hockey stick were inflicting injuri Paramjit Singh and that on account of the injuries suffered incident, Paramjit Singh passed away. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to the prosecution during the course of investigation, the petitioner was found to be innocent and therefore, in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the petitioner was not prosecuted. It is relevant to mention here that the trial commenced against the other accused and during the course of trial an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was filed. On consideration of above-mentioned application, the learned trial Court summoned the present petitioner as one the accused in the present case. Heard. he record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than months and 13 days; that the petitioner has clean antecedents; that the petitioner was declared innocent by the Investigating agency and therefore, his detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose; that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be rec petitioner; -2- The complainant further stated that Amar Singh armed with datar, Balbir Singh and Harbhajan Singh (the petitioner stick were inflicting injuries on the person of that on account of the injuries suffered in the above-said It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to the prosecution during the course of investigation, the petitioner was herefore, in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the It is relevant to mention here that the trial commenced against the during the course of trial an application under Section 319 mentioned application, the learned trial Court summoned the present petitioner as one the accused in the present case. he 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 decision: that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than the petitioner has clean antecedents; r was declared innocent by the Investigating agency detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of , Balbir Singh petitioner- es on the person of said mentioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to the prosecution during the course of investigation, the petitioner was herefore, in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the It is relevant to mention here that the trial commenced against the during the course of trial an application under Section 319 mentioned application, the learned trial Court summoned the present petitioner as one the accused in the present case. following are the : - that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than 07 r was declared innocent by the Investigating agency detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, overed from the possession of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4208-202 v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future prosecution witnesses vi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner m and vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 8. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of “ another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, observed that “ presumption of 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 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 (whic 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 ou 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 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 2026 (O&M) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future prosecution witnesses only two have been examined 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 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 the 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 relevant, wherein it has been 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 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 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 ou 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 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”. -3- that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of 22 have been examined, so far; that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the ay tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; 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 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 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 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 hever 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 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 as out of 22 that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the ay tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, 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 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 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 hever 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 r 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 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 TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4208-202 9. The principles lai 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 bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to r 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 ultimat custody would be a case of grave injustice 10. Recently, in the case of ‘ Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 observed that “if an accused is to get a fin 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’ 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 Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently 11. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This 2026 (O&M) 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 2022) 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 r 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 ultimat custody would be a case of grave injustice”. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 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 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’ 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 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 and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This -4- d 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 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 Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has al verdict after incarceration of six to 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 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 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 d 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 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 arity, 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 e acquittal with continued Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has al verdict after incarceration of six to 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 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 the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4208-202 constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC On SC 4354. 12. 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 be allowed. 13. 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 Co following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade hi to any other authority; (ii) 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 decisio (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. April 23, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2026 (O&M) constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC On 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, 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 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 decisio 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 -5- 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 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, . The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction urt. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts m to disclose such facts to the Court or 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 of the (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex line 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, . The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction urt. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts m to disclose such facts to the Court or 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 that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document