226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA PAPPU SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This is the second grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 29.04.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/201/147/148/149 Kalannwali, District Sirsa. 2. The 5:00 PM, when the complainant’s mother was coming from the house of neighbourers and came near the gate, husband Pappu (petitioner herein), her son Nikka Singh and two other young persons, whose faces were covered, in connivance with each other attacked upon her with their respective weapons i.e. injuries to her on various was separated from the body and she died on the spot. was registered. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PAPPU SINGH V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sumeet S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This is the second petition filed under Section grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. , registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/201/147/148/149 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act Kalannwali, District Sirsa. The brief facts of the present case are that on 5:00 PM, when the complainant’s mother was coming from the house of neighbourers and came near the gate, due to some property dispute, husband Pappu (petitioner herein), her son Nikka Singh and two other young persons, whose faces were covered, in connivance with each other attacked upon her with their respective weapons i.e. kirpan, kulhari on various parts of body and neck of mother of the complainant was separated from the body and she died on the spot. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14598-2025 Date of decision: 24.03.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.120 dated , registered for the offences punishable under Sections and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station brief facts of the present case are that on 29.04.2022 at about 5:00 PM, when the complainant’s mother was coming from the house of due to some property dispute, Rani, her husband Pappu (petitioner herein), her son Nikka Singh and two other young persons, whose faces were covered, in connivance with each other attacked kirpan, kulhari and pistol and gave parts of body and neck of mother of the complainant was separated from the body and she died on the spot. Hence, the FIR (supra) MANISHA 2025.03.24 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14598 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first petition seeking the concession of reg 20.05.2024 and the present petition has been filed on account of delay in conclusion of the trial as the petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 02 years and 08 months. He further submits that till date, o witness have been examined out of 28 cited witnesses. Further, bailable warrants against the complainant not appearing to depose as a witness. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner perusal of the FIR ( been attributed to the petitioner investigating agency has concluded that while, the petitioner was armed with pistol stood as guard, others have committed the murder of the deceased. Learned counsel further refers to the post submits that the death of deceased took place due to injuries inf with sharp weapon, which have been re further relies upon medical certificate of the petitioner (Annexure P submits that the petitioner is a disabled person and his disability has been assessed as 70% as discernible from aforementioned handicapped medical certificate. Learned counsel further contends that the entire family has been roped in, whereas the petitioner has no connection with the alleged incident and he is behind the bars since 09 5. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record and bail to the petitioner on the ground that 14598-2025 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first petition seeking the concession of regular bail was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.05.2024 and the present petition has been filed on account of delay in conclusion of the trial as the petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 02 years and 08 months. He further submits that till date, o witness have been examined out of 28 cited witnesses. Further, bailable warrants against the complainant-Kamaldeep Kaur have been issued as she is not appearing to depose as a witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner perusal of the FIR (supra) indicates that no specific role or specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Further, investigating agency has concluded that while, the petitioner was armed with ood as guard, others have committed the murder of the deceased. Learned counsel further refers to the post-mortem report (Annexure P submits that the death of deceased took place due to injuries inf with sharp weapon, which have been recovered from the co further relies upon medical certificate of the petitioner (Annexure P submits that the petitioner is a disabled person and his disability has been assessed as 70% as discernible from aforementioned handicapped medical certificate. Learned counsel further contends that the entire family has been roped in, whereas the petitioner has no connection with the alleged incident is behind the bars since 09.07.2022. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record and per contra bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has played active role in Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first petition ular bail was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.05.2024 and the present petition has been filed on account of delay in conclusion of the trial as the petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 02 years and 08 months. He further submits that till date, only 04 prosecution witness have been examined out of 28 cited witnesses. Further, bailable Kamaldeep Kaur have been issued as she is Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the ) indicates that no specific role or specific injury has . Further, during investigation, the investigating agency has concluded that while, the petitioner was armed with ood as guard, others have committed the murder of the deceased. mortem report (Annexure P-3) and submits that the death of deceased took place due to injuries inflicted on her covered from the co-accused. He further relies upon medical certificate of the petitioner (Annexure P-6) and submits that the petitioner is a disabled person and his disability has been assessed as 70% as discernible from aforementioned handicapped medical certificate. Learned counsel further contends that the entire family has been roped in, whereas the petitioner has no connection with the alleged incident Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in the Court per contra, opposes the grant of regular the petitioner has played active role in MANISHA 2025.03.24 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14598 commission of the murder of dec assembly and brutal attack was deceased was separated from the body. also involved in one more case under IPC. the fact that the petitioner has under months and 14 been examined till date. 6. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Kumar Antil v. CBI’ of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since 09.07.2022 14598-2025 3 commission of the murder of deceased as he was the part of unlawful assembly and brutal attack was launched on the deceased. The deceased was separated from the body. As per custody certificate, petitioner is also involved in one more case under IPC. However, he could not co the petitioner has undergone a total custody period of days and out of total 28 prosecution witnesses, only 04 have been examined till date. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. T illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigat agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.” Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the 09.07.2022 as per his custody certificate. eased as he was the part of unlawful launched on the deceased. The neck of the As per custody certificate, petitioner is However, he could not controvert gone a total custody period of 02 years, 08 out of total 28 prosecution witnesses, only 04 have A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender , with respect to prevailing conditions 6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than d of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the as per his custody certificate. Investigation is complete. MANISHA 2025.03.24 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14598 The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case has not made much progress as only prosecution witnesses would be determined at the t further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 8. As far as the issue of the petitioner being a habitual offender is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2020 (11) SCC 648 another (2012) 2 SCC 382 allegations leveled against the accused or pendency of other cases against him cannot be the only basis to refuse the prayer of bail. 9. In view of the above, the present petition is without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. 10. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. March 24, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 14598-2025 4 The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case has not made much progress as only prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The c would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As far as the issue of the petitioner being a habitual offender is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. 2020 (11) SCC 648 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and her (2012) 2 SCC 382, has categorically held that the grave and serious allegations leveled against the accused or pendency of other cases against him cannot be the only basis to refuse the prayer of bail. In view of the above, the present petition is without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner-Pappu Singh regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety e satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case has not made much progress as only 04 out of 28 been examined so far. The culpability, if any, ime of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, 21 of the Constitution of India. As far as the issue of the petitioner being a habitual offender is Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and , has categorically held that the grave and serious allegations leveled against the accused or pendency of other cases against him cannot be the only basis to refuse the prayer of bail. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the Pappu Singh is ordered to be released on regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety e satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.03.24 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment