CRM-M-16399 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 221 SANDEEP KHICHAR STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA PARTAP SINGH under Section been filed for the commission of offence puni 309(4), 249, 61(2 of Arms Act Police Station City 2. FIR of this case hereinafter being referred to as ‘ above named complainant that on 07.07.2025 at about 10.00 A.M. when he was going towards his showroom and his father, namely ‘San Verma’ was parking his car in the parking lot, situated in front of their 16399-2026 (O&M)7 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH SANDEEP KHICHAR VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and Mr. Akash Balyan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral) This petition is the first petition for bail, filed by the under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103, 3(5),111, 309(4), 249, 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 of Arms Act Police Station City-1 Abohar, District Fazilka. Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Himanshu Verma’, reinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above named complainant that on 07.07.2025 at about 10.00 A.M. when he was going towards his showroom and his father, namely ‘San Verma’ was parking his car in the parking lot, situated in front of their IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16399-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 29.04.2026 .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS .....RESPONDENT(S) SURYA PARTAP SINGH and Mr. Akash Balyan, Advocate This petition is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.162 dated 07.07.2025, shable under Sections 103, 3(5),111, ) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 and 27 1 Abohar, District Fazilka. Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the came into being at the instance of ‘Himanshu Verma’, complainant’ only. It was stated by the above named complainant that on 07.07.2025 at about 10.00 A.M. when he was going towards his showroom and his father, namely ‘Sanjay Kumar Verma’ was parking his car in the parking lot, situated in front of their (O&M) .2026 (S) (S) petitioner 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has 07.07.2025, shable under Sections 103, 3(5),111, and Section 25 and 27 Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the came into being at the instance of ‘Himanshu Verma’, complainant’ only. It was stated by the above named complainant that on 07.07.2025 at about 10.00 A.M. when he jay Kumar Verma’ was parking his car in the parking lot, situated in front of their VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.29 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16399 showroom, three boys riding on a motorcycle came there with the complainant, the name remaining two he would identify if produced before him. It was further stated by the complainant that on account of abovementioned bullet injuries, his father passed away. 3. abovementioned investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation, it has been found that the assailants involved in the commission of abo Singh alias Karan’ an 4. alleged by the prosecution that petitioner accommodation to the co shooting. events had taken place 5. petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition. 6. 7. 16399-2026 (O&M)7 2 showroom, three boys riding on a motorcycle came there pistol at his father with the intention to kill him. According to complainant, the name of one of the assailants was ‘Shakti Kumar’ and the remaining two he would identify if produced before him. It was further stated by the complainant that on account of abovementioned bullet injuries, his father passed away. It is the case of the prose abovementioned statement, the formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation, it has been found that the assailants involved in the commission of above-mentioned offence were ‘Shakti Kumar’, ‘Jaskaran Singh alias Karan’ and ‘Rajinder Singh alias Billa’. With regard to role attributed to the petitioner, it has been alleged by the prosecution that the only role attributed to the abovenamed petitioner is that before the commission of offence, he had provided accommodation to the co-accused who were involved in the incident of As per story set-out by the prosecution, the above events had taken place before the commission of offence. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present Heard. The record has been perused carefully. showroom, three boys riding on a motorcycle came there, and fired gunshots pistol at his father with the intention to kill him. According to of one of the assailants was ‘Shakti Kumar’ and the remaining two he would identify if produced before him. It was further stated by the complainant that on account of abovementioned bullet injuries, It is the case of the prosecution that in view of the formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation, it has been found that the assailants involved in the mentioned offence were ‘Shakti Kumar’, ‘Jaskaran d ‘Rajinder Singh alias Billa’. With regard to role attributed to the petitioner, it has been the only role attributed to the abovenamed is that before the commission of offence, he had provided accused who were involved in the incident of out by the prosecution, the above-mentioned commission of offence. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present has been perused carefully. and fired gunshots pistol at his father with the intention to kill him. According to of one of the assailants was ‘Shakti Kumar’ and the remaining two he would identify if produced before him. It was further stated by the complainant that on account of abovementioned bullet injuries, cution that in view of the formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation, it has been found that the assailants involved in the mentioned offence were ‘Shakti Kumar’, ‘Jaskaran With regard to role attributed to the petitioner, it has been the only role attributed to the abovenamed is that before the commission of offence, he had provided accused who were involved in the incident of mentioned The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.29 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16399 8. the relevant factors which are require decision:- 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, 16399-2026 (O&M)7 3 A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration - i. that the petitioner is more than nine months ii. that as per story set-out by the prosecution, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence; iii. that there is no allegation against the petitioner that was part of the conspiracy which might have taken place before the commission of crime; iv. that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner he was involved in the commission of crime either directly or indirectly; v. that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the similarly placed co-accused; vi. that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vii. that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future; viii. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock likely to serve any purpose; ix. that there is nothing on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and x. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future; viii. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock likely to serve any purpose; ix. that there is nothing on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and x. 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 Supreme Court of India in the case of “ Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are d to be taken into consideration for a already in custody for a period of nine months; out by the prosecution, the petitioner not present on the spot at the time of occurrence; that there is no allegation against the petitioner that part of the conspiracy which might have taken place ommission of crime; that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner that involved in the commission of crime either that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the accused; g has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; 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 In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are for a already in custody for a period of out by the prosecution, the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he part of the conspiracy which might have taken place that involved in the commission of crime either that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the g has been left to be recovered from the that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in up is not record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Dataram versus State of are relevant, VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.29 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16399 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 t 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 pers 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 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 discretio 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 circumstances of a case 10. India in the case of ‘ Investigation and Another’, ( In the aboveme in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor 16399-2026 (O&M)7 4 wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental pos 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 pers 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 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 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 Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “ in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor 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 o 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 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 n 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 The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of 2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. ntioned 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 tulate 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 o 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 on 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 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 n 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 in the The principles laid down by the Hon’ble 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 VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.29 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16399 weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think t 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 adju On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice 11. Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 India has observed that “ 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 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 v 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. fundamental fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated 16399-2026 (O&M)7 5 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 adju 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, 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 v 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 weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a hat 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 Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC 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, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 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 o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and 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 weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a hat 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 dication 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, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 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 alued. 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 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 VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.29 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16399 by Hon’ble Apex court in Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354 13. involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the present petition 14. case, the present to be released on bail on furnishing satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions: (i) (ii) (iii) 29.04.2026 Vinod 16399-2026 (O&M)7 6 by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder 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 a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the 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 and surety bond(s) to the sfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise 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, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shal 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. 29.04.2026 Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 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 conclusion that the petitioner is 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 sfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession 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 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 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 benefit of bail, and that the Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the hereby ordered personal bond and surety bond(s) to the sfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish l notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission ) VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.29 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document