CRA-S-1820-202 IN THE H SHIV CHARANJ STATE OF PUNJ 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S None **** MANISHA BATR 1. The i 14-A of the Sch Atrocities) Act, Court of Addition dated 06.01.2024 r IPC and Section 3 2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH RANJIT Versus PUNJAB AND ANOTHER date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. B.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab None for respondent No.2 **** BATRA, J. The instant appeal has been filed by Scheduled Caste and the Sched 1989 challenging the order dat ditional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in .2024 registered under Sections 302, 3 ction 3(1) of Scheduled Caste and Sc JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRA-S-1820-2026 (O&M) ... Appellant ...Respondents served 18.08.2026 onounced 20.08.2026 loaded on the 20.08.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA r the appellant iled by the appellant under Section Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of er dated 04.10.2024 passed by the rpur in case arising out of FIR No.8 302, 396, 323, 406, 307, 148, 149 of and Scheduled Tribes Act (for short ction n of the No.8 49 of short AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.20 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1820-202 “SC/ST Act”) at application for gra 2. Brief appeal are that th statement recorded Nagar Kirtan had arranged for the villager. The com milk to the congre rod along with the armed with weapo (son of the compla and then he opene of Sahil. Accused their rods and stic also assaulted wi Deepu struck blo namely Malkit La by them attracted assailants fled awa 3. As p hospital. However While alleging th 2026 (O&M) 2 t”) at Police Station Tanda, Distr for grant of regular bail as filed by the Brief facts of the case relevant for t that the aforementioned FIR was re corded by complainant Kashmiri Lal had passed through his village. r the congregation at the welding sh e complainant along with his sons S congregation, when at about 08-8:15 ith the co-accused reached there in a weapons. Accused Ashish @ Ashu m omplainant) should be taught a lesson opened an assault by striking blows w ccused Abhishek @ Abhi and Ladi a nd sticks. The complainant rushed for ed with a baseball bat by accused ck blows with stick on his person. lkit Lal, was also assaulted by the acc tracted other persons, who rushed f ed away on their tractor trolley. As per the further allegations, inju wever, he succumbed to the injurie ing that accused Ashu was having , District Hoshiarpur whereby an by the appellant had been dismissed. t for the purpose of disposal of this was registered on the basis of the ri Lal alleging that on 05.01.2024, a lage. A langar of milk was being ing shop of Gurmeet Singh, a co- sons Sahil and Gaurav was serving 8:15 PM, the appellant armed with e in a tractor trolley. They were also shu made an exhortation that Sahil lesson for raising voice against them lows with a baseball bat on the head Ladi also assaulted the victim with ed for the rescue of his son and was cused Amritpal. Navdeep Singh @ erson. Brother of the complainant, the accused persons. Clamour raised shed for their rescue and then the s, injured Sahil was rushed to the injuries sustained by him and died. aving a grudge against his son on an this f the 24, a eing - rving with also Sahil them head with was h @ nant, aised the the died. n on AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.20 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1820-202 account of some complainant praye investigation proc SC/ST Act was Paramjit Singh @ supplementary sta nominated as ac 13.01.2024. Prese commission of application for gra had been dismisse 4. It is a order is not sustain trial Court did not the deceased had attributed to him, has been opined to of subject offence time to conclude His further detent submissions, it is appeal deserves to regular bail. 2026 (O&M) 3 some previous altercation and had t prayed for taking action in the matter n proceedings were initiated. Offenc was added as the victim belonged ngh @ Pamma was arrested on 06.0 ary statement of the complainant, so as accused and were arrested. The Presently, the appellant and the c of aforementioned offences. The for grant of regular bail before the lea smissed by passing the impugned order It is argued by learned counsel for th sustainable in the eyes of law as while id not consider the fact that no injury had been attributed to him and him, is a rod blow on the shoulder o ined to be simple in nature. He had no ffences. He is in custody since long. T clude as only 2 prosecution witnesse detention would not serve any usefu , it is urged that the impugned order rves to be accepted and the appellant d d had committed his murder, the matter. After registration of the FIR, Offence under Section 3(1) of the onged to SC community. Accused n 06.01.2024. On the basis of the ant, some other persons were also d. The appellant was arrested on the co-accused is facing trial for . The appellant had moved an the learned trial Court but the same d order dated 04.10.2024. l for the appellant that the impugned s while passing the same, the learned injury whatsoever on the person of and the only injury, which was ulder of injured Malkit Singh which ad no role to play in the commission long. The trial will take considerable tnesses have been examined so far. useful purpose. With these broad order is liable to be set aside, the ellant deserves to be given benefit of , the FIR, the used f the also on l for an same gned rned n of was hich ssion rable far. road , the fit of AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.20 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1820-202 5. Writt State counsel has the appellant, w accused and it wa that the injuries complainant and Sahil proved fata prima facie reve incident. The deat sustained by him. chances of the app of bail. Hence, it is 6. This C for the parties at co 7. The a Section 149 of the member of an u vicariously liable actually committe object, and such k assembly, arms, o case, the appellant 2026 (O&M) 4 Written response has been filed by t el has argued that there are serious an ho formed membership of an un it was in prosecution of common ob juries were caused to deceased/vict t and his brother Malkit Lal. The in d fatal and resulted into his instanta reveal that the appellant had play e death of the victim had occurred d y him. The material witnesses are ye the appellant’s intimidating them or a ce, it is urged that the present appeal is This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The appellant has been linked to the of the Indian Penal Code, as per whic an unlawful assembly, the other m liable, if it is established that he knew mitted was likely to be committed i such knowledge may reasonably be co rms, or behaviour at or before the sc pellant is alleged to have reached the s d by the respondent-State. Learned ious and specific allegations against an unlawful assembly with the co- on object of that unlawful assembly ed/victim Sahil as well as to the he injuries so sustained by victim nstantaneous death. The allegations played active participation in the rred due to the impact of the injury are yet to be examined. There are or absconding, if extended benefit peal is liable to be dismissed. ubmissions made by learned counsel to the acts attributed with the aid of r which, for an act committed by one ther member of that assembly is e knew beforehand that the offence itted in prosecution of the common y be collected from the nature of the the scene of action. In the instant d the spot being accompanied by the rned ainst - mbly the ictim tions the jury e are nefit unsel id of one ly is ence mon f the stant y the AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.20 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1820-202 co-accused in a tr upon the victim S brother Malkit Sin victim Sahil has n on the shoulder/pe 8. Thou appellant, howeve months. The chanc out of 34 prosecut deprivation of p consonance with t In Javed Gulam 2024(9) SCC 813 serious a crime ma withheld as a pu prosecuting agenc provide or protect enshrined under A prosecuting agenc crime committed, of the nature of t secure the attenda is in the solution o 2026 (O&M) 5 in a tractor-trolley and is further alle ctim Sahil (son of the complainant), th lkit Singh. However, the fatal/grievou l has not been attributed to the appella lder/person of Malkit Singh that has be Though the allegations make out a owever, he has been in custody for a chances of conclusion of trial in the n osecution witnesses have been examin of personal liberty without ensur with the right guaranteed by Article 2 lam Nabi Shaikh vs The State o 813, the Hon’ble Apex Court h ime may be, an accused has a right to a punishment. It was also observ agency including the Court conce rotect the fundamental right of an acc nder Article 21 of the Constitution, agency should not oppose the plea f itted, is serious. Article 21 of the Co e of the crime. It is also well-settle ttendance of the accused at the trial an ution of the question is whether the ba er alleged to have opened an attack ant), the complainant, as well as his rievous injury on the person of the ppellant. It is only the simple injury has been attributed to him. out a prima facie case against the for a period of about 2 years and 7 n the near future are bleak, as only 2 xamined so far. It is well settled that ensuring speedy trial is not in rticle 21 of the Constitution of India. te of Maharashtra and another ourt had observed that howsoever, ght to speedy trial. Bail is not to be observed that if the State or any concerned has no wherewithal to an accused to have a speedy trial as tution, then the State or any other plea for bail on the ground that the the Constitution applies irrespective settled that the object of bail is to trial and the proper test to be applied the bail should be granted or refused ttack s his f the njury t the nd 7 nly 2 that t in ndia. r ever, to be any al to al as other t the ctive is to plied used AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.20 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1820-202 or whether it is p indisputable that consideration the ascribed to him, t facts and circumst order is set aside a furnishing persona Chief Judicial Mag 9. It is m the purpose of dec the merits of the ca 10. Since any, is rendered in 20.08.2026 Amit Sharma 2026 (O&M) 6 it is probable that the party will app that bail is not to be withheld as n the period spent by the appellant him, the fact that trial is not likely to cumstance peculiar to this case, the ap aside and the appellant is ordered to be ersonal as well as surety bonds to t al Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistr It is made clear that any observation of deciding the present appeal and the f the case. Since the main appeal has been all ered infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No ill appear to take its trial and it is eld as a punishment. Taking into pellant in custody, the limited role kely to be conclude shortly and the appeal is allowed, the impugned d to be released on bail subject to his s to the satisfaction of the learned agistrate concerned. vation made herein above is only for nd the same shall have no bearing on allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No it is into role d the gned o his rned y for g on n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.20 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.