CRM-M-1159-20 IN THE H SARAJ SINGH @ 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. Mr. A Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S 25 of Arms Act a petition was dismi 2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH GH @ MINTU Versus
PUNJAB he 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 . Hitesh Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for the pe Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the second petition of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Sections 364, 302, 201, 148, 149 Act at Police Station Sultanwind, Di dismissed as withdrawn on 12.07.202 JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-1159-2025 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 11.02.2026 onounced 16.02.2026 loaded on the 16.02.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA
the petitioner petition filed by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.110 dated 30.04.2016 8, 149 and 120B of IPC and Section nd, District Amritsar. His previous 7.2022. oner
dent nder ) 2016 ction ious AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1159-20 2. The recorded by the co 2:30 PM, his son h by accused Raghu Then the complain Post and on reach petitioner alongwi and Ashu @ Hon Accused Ashu @ near the car, the a out a pistol on the of them fled away killed, he prayed f 3. After The dead body of on 02.05.2016. Po Honey was arreste his involvement i names of the petiti was added. The p appearance was se formally arrested Investigation now 2025 (O&M) 2 The aforementioned FIR was registe the complainant Jarnail Singh allegin s son had received a phone call and tol Raghu and Ashu at the Old Chungi (O mplainant alongwith his son had proc reaching there, they found a Figo longwith accused Darshan Singh @ R Honey were sitting in the same. hu @ Honey called his son towards h , the accused Bobby Malhotra alighte on the ear lobe of his son and pulled h away. By alleging that his son had b ayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigatio dy of the victim was recovered on th 16. Post-mortem of the same was con arrested on 06.05.2016. He suffered d ent in the abduction and murder of e petitioner and the co-accused. Offen The petitioner was found to be in cus was secured by way of issuance of pr rested on 08.04.2018. Some other n now stands completed. registered on the basis of statement alleging that on 29.04.2016 at about and told him that he was being called ngi (Octroi) Post, Tarn Taran Road. d proceeded towards the old Octroi Figo make Car lying parked. The h @ Raja, Bobby Malhotra, Raghu me. They were carrying weapons. ards him and as soon as he reached alighted from the same and pointed ulled him inside the car and then all had been abducted with intent to be stigation proceedings were initiated. on the basis of a secret information as conducted. The accused Ashu @ fered disclosure statement admitting der of the victim and also took the Offence under Section 120B of IPC in custody in some other case. His e of production warrants and he was other accused were also arrested. ment bout alled oad. ctroi he aghu pons. ched inted n all to be ated. ation u @ itting k the IPC His was sted. AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1159-20 4. It is a implicated in this was no motive for the victim. The in 302 IPC have no occurrence of mur and there is no circ a period of over 07 trial in the near fu been examined. H rights guaranteed argued that the pet 5. Per c and specific allega of the abductors o days after his ab petitioner in the cr the second petition the petition does n 6. This C for both the parties 7. The p alleged to have ab was recovered 03 2025 (O&M) 3 It is argued by counsel for the petit n this case. No specific overt act has ive for him to commit the subject offe ingredients for commission of off ve not been attracted qua him. Th of murder of the victim. The case rests no circumstance to connect him with t over 07 years and 09 months. There a ear future as till date only 05 out of 2 ned. His prolonged incarceration mil nteed under Article 21 of the Constitu the petitioner deserves to be released o Per contra, learned State counsel has allegations against the petitioner. He tors of the victim. The dead body of t his abduction, prima facie showing crime. There are serious allegatio petition for bail and is not maintainabl does not deserve to allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner by hatching a consp ave abducted the victim on 29.04.2016 red 03 days thereafter and it was fou e petitioner that he has been falsely ct has been attributed to him. There ct offence as he had no enmity with of offence punishable under Section . There is no eye-witness to the se rests upon circumstantial evidence with the crime. He is in custody for here are no chances of conclusion of ut of 26 prosecution witnesses have on militates against the fundamental onstitution of India. It is, therefore, ased on bail. sel has argued that there are serious er. He was named in the FIR as one of the victim was recovered three wing the active complicity of the legations against the petition. This is tainable. It is, therefore, argued that ubmissions made by learned counsel conspiracy with the co-accused is 4.2016. The dead body of the victim as found to be a case of homicidal lsely here with ction the ence y for on of have ental fore, rious s one three f the his is that unsel ed is ictim cidal AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1159-20 death. The petiti custody ever since cases, however, no and 10 months. witnesses have be considerable time the petitioner. Th Singh @ Kakka @ Katta, Bhupinder Khan have already law is that the Co keep certain facto reasonable ground circumstances whi repeated, the natur the event of conv released on bail, a etc. However, at factor to be consi accused charged w catena of cases tha of time, and the ba filed repeatedly. provide a new c circumstances. Th 2025 (O&M) 4 petitioner had been arrested in this r since then. Though he is shown to ver, now he has remained in custody nths. The trial has not progressed m ave been examined so far. Therefor e time to conclude. No recovery has b er. The co-accused namely Jagrosha kka @ Baba Bullar and Honey Singh inder Singh @ Sonu @ Kangla and lready been extended benefit of bail. the Court, while considering an applic factors in mind such as whether th ground to believe that the accused es which are peculiar to the accused, l e nature and gravity of the accusation, f conviction, the danger of the accu bail, and reasonable apprehension of t er, at the same time, the period of in considered while deciding whether rged with an offence. The Hon’ble A ses that an accused cannot be kept in c the bail application can be considered edly. It has also been held that eve new cause of action for filing a b es. This principle is a part of the broad n this case on 08.04.2018 and is in own to be involved in several other stody for a period of about 07 years ssed much as only 05 prosecution erefore, it is clear that it will take has been effected at the instance of groshan Singh @ Roshan, Simranjit Singh @ Honey @ Ashu, Sajjan @ la and Darshan Singh @ Rajan @ bail. The well settled proposition of application for grant of bail, has to ther there is a prima facie case or cused has committed the offence, used, likelihood of the offence being sation, severity of the punishment in e accused absconding or fleeing if on of the witnesses being threatened, d of incarceration is also a relevant hether bail should be granted to an ’ble Apex Court has observed in a pt in custody for an indefinite period sidered on its own merits even if it is at every day spent in custody can g a bail application under certain e broader approach emphasizing that is in other years ution take ce of ranjit n @ n @ on of as to se or ence, eing nt in ng if ned, nt o an in a eriod f it is can rtain that AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1159-20 law prefers bail o requirements of t placed on the obse @ Hussain v. Stat observed that the often than not, app are more likely to upon Manmandal (Criminal) No. 86 of Odisha, 2023 L who had been inca was likely to take generally militates Article 21 of the C 7. On an case in the light o petitioner has suff months. The trial detention of the pe nothing on record participate in the t bail is the rule and be a replica of pos discussed facts, th bail to the petition 2025 (O&M) 5 bail over jail, aiming to balance the s of the criminal justice system. R e observations made by the Hon’ble A . State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC O at the jails are overcrowded and the ot, appalling. The danger of unjustified ely to be hardened rather than reforme ndal and Another v. State of West B o. 8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.20 023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein ba en incarcerated for a period of almost o take considerable time, by observin ilitates against the most precious fund f the Constitution.
On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle as suffered prolonged incarceration fo e trial is not likely to be concluded i the petitioner is not likely to serve an record to show that if released on n the trial or will abscond. It is well ule and jail is an exception and that p of post-conviction sentencing. Takin cts, this Court is of the opinion that a etitioner at this stage. Accordingly, t e the rights of the accused with the m. Reliance in this regard can be n’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim C OnLine SC 352, wherein it was nd their living conditions are, more ustified imprisonment is that inmates eformed. Reliance can also be placed est Bengal, Special Leave Petition 09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State rein bail was granted to the accused lmost two to three years and the trial serving that prolonged incarceration s fundamental right guaranteed under ts and circumstances of the present nciples of law, it transpires that the tion for a period of 07 years and 10 uded in near future. The continued rve any fruitful purpose and there is ed on bail, the petitioner will not s well settled proposition of law that that pre-trial incarceration shall not Taking into consideration the above that a case is made out for grant of ngly, the petition is allowed and the h the n be lim t was more ates laced ion ate used trial ation nder esent t the d 10 nued re is l not that l not bove nt of d the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1159-20 petitioner is order well as surety bon Magistrate/Duty M 8. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 9. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 10. Since any, is rendered in 16.02.2026 Amit Sharma


2025 (O&M) 6 ordered to be released on bail subjec ty bonds to the satisfaction of the lea uty Magistrate concerned. In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-Stat seeking cancellation of bail. It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

subject to his furnishing personal as he learned trial Court/Chief Judicial y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
al as icial t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.