IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 111 Jagdip Singh State of Punjab [ CORAM: Present : SURYA PARTAP SINGH behalf of complainant hereby allowed and the record. 2. under Section 483 of been filed for the commission of of Penal code and Sections 25 & District Ludhiana. CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jagdip Singh VERSUS Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Mr. Amit Agnihotri, Advocate Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. CRM-35420-2025 This is an application seeking for placing on record behalf of complainant. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the reply annexed with the application CRM-M-46022-2025 This petition for bail is the first under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita been filed with regard to a case arising out of for the commission of offence punishable under Section Penal code and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Division No.8, District Ludhiana. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.02.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate for the complainant. ***** This is an application seeking for placing on record the reply on . For the reasons stated in the application, the same is annexed with the application is taken on first petition, filed by the petitioner ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.294 dated 14.09.2019 fence punishable under Sections 302, 34 of Indian 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Division No.8, (O&M) .2026 Petitioner ..... Respondent the reply on . For the reasons stated in the application, the same is taken on petitioner has 14.09.2019, 302, 34 of Indian 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Division No.8, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. ‘Randeep Kaur stated by her husband Manjeet Singh Mall, Ludhiana 12:00 night, there was a heated argument between Jagdeep Singh herein), Bindi and other persons. Singh had pushed Manjeet Singh several times, which led to a scuffle between unknown person on was alleged pushed aside and then Bindi a gunshot, which hit the left rib of her husband (Manjeet Singh) to be fatal. 4. statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 5. petitioner. The same be 6. 7. the contents of FIR was gunshot injury, which has been attributed to the co Singh @Bindi CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M) 2 The abovementioned FIR came into being Randeep Kaur’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that her husband Manjeet Singh, attended a birthday party Mall, Ludhiana. According to above-named complainant night, there was a heated argument between Jagdeep Singh , Bindi and other persons. As per complainant, her husband Manjeet had intervened to resolve the issue, but Jagdeep Singh and Bindi Manjeet Singh several times, which led to a scuffle between unknown person on one side and husband of was alleged by the complainant that she, too, tried to pushed aside and then Bindi took out a weapon from his waist belt a gunshot, which hit the left rib of her husband (Manjeet Singh) fatal. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the contents of FIR itself make it clear that cause of death of Manjeet Singh was gunshot injury, which has been attributed to the co @Bindi. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2 he abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of , hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was named complainant that on 13.09.2019, she, along with a birthday party at Castle Bar, Pavilion named complainant, there at around night, there was a heated argument between Jagdeep Singh (petitioner As per complainant, her husband Manjeet to resolve the issue, but Jagdeep Singh and Bindi Manjeet Singh several times, which led to a scuffle between one and husband of the petitioner on other side. by the complainant that she, too, tried to intervene, but she was took out a weapon from his waist belt and fired a gunshot, which hit the left rib of her husband (Manjeet Singh) and prov It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that itself make it clear that cause of death of Manjeet Singh was gunshot injury, which has been attributed to the co-accused Jaswinder . According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the at the instance of , hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was along with Castle Bar, Pavilion , there at around (petitioner As per complainant, her husband Manjeet to resolve the issue, but Jagdeep Singh and Bindi one petitioner on other side. It , but she was and fired and proved It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that itself make it clear that cause of death of Manjeet Singh accused Jaswinder . According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document allegation before the gunshot injury. 8. petitioner that progressing and in one of the trial pending against the statement of complainant has already been recorded, wherein supported the prosecution case @Bindi and others in the commission of crime. As per learned counsel the petitioner, although attributed bail. 9. the complainant learned counsel for the complainant has contended that allegations against the for the complainant there is a constant threat to the only, she case. 10. benefit is accorded to the petitioner, he, too, complainant and therefore, the petitioner is not bail. It has also for re-examination of the complainant, an application under Section 311 of CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M) 3 allegations against the petitioner are that he before the gunshot injury. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, two different trials are simultaneously progressing and in one of the trial pending against the statement of complainant has already been recorded, wherein supported the prosecution case qua the involvement of Jaswinder Singh @Bindi and others in the commission of crime. As per learned counsel the petitioner, although the main allegation for causing fatal injury has been attributed to Jaswinder Singh @Bindi, but he has already been en The learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has controverted the abovementioned arguments. learned counsel for the complainant has contended that allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature for the complainant has tried to build-up his argument on the a constant threat to the complainant only, she had been left with no option, but not to support the prosecution According to learned counsel for the complainant, if the same benefit is accorded to the petitioner, he, too, complainant and therefore, the petitioner is not bail. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that examination of the complainant, an application under Section 311 of 3 petitioner are that he simply pushed the deceased, just It has also been contended by learned counsel for the in the present case, two different trials are simultaneously progressing and in one of the trial pending against Jaswinder Singh @Bindi, the statement of complainant has already been recorded, wherein she has not qua the involvement of Jaswinder Singh @Bindi and others in the commission of crime. As per learned counsel the main allegation for causing fatal injury has been to Jaswinder Singh @Bindi, but he has already been enlarged on being assisted by learned counsel for has controverted the abovementioned arguments. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that in the present case, tioner are of serious nature. The learned counsel up his argument on the plea that in fact complainant and on account of that threat left with no option, but not to support the prosecution According to learned counsel for the complainant, if the same benefit is accorded to the petitioner, he, too, will prevail upon the complainant and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that examination of the complainant, an application under Section 311 of the deceased, just It has also been contended by learned counsel for the in the present case, two different trials are simultaneously Jaswinder Singh @Bindi, she has not qua the involvement of Jaswinder Singh @Bindi and others in the commission of crime. As per learned counsel for the main allegation for causing fatal injury has been larged on being assisted by learned counsel for The in the present case, earned counsel that in fact and on account of that threat left with no option, but not to support the prosecution According to learned counsel for the complainant, if the same will prevail upon the d for the benefit of been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that examination of the complainant, an application under Section 311 of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CrPC has also been finally decided 11. 12. the relevant factors which are require decision:- i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) viii) ix) CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M) 4 CrPC has also been filed, before the learned trial Court, which is yet to be y decided, as stay order has been passed by this Court. The 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 - i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of than 01 year and 05 ½ months ii) that as per contents of FIR, the allegations against the petitioner are of pushing the deceased and except that, no overt or covert has been attributed to the petitioner, which responsible for the death of Manjeet Singh; iii) that the accused Jaswinder Singh @Bindi to whom gunshot injury has been attributed has already been enlarged on bail; iv) that the statement of complainant v) that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of petitioner; vi) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; vii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose; viii) 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 ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 4 before the learned trial Court, which is yet to be as stay order has been passed by this Court. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are d to be taken into consideration for a that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more months; of FIR, the allegations against the petitioner are of pushing the deceased and except that, no overt or covert to the petitioner, which might have been for the death of Manjeet Singh; Jaswinder Singh @Bindi to whom gunshot injury has been attributed has already been enlarged on bail; that the statement of complainant has already been recorded; that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. before the learned trial Court, which is yet to be A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are for a more of FIR, the allegations against the petitioner are of pushing the deceased and except that, no overt or covert might have been Jaswinder Singh @Bindi to whom gunshot that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundament 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 re 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 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 dis 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 fact circumstances of a case”. 14. India in the case of ‘ Investigation and Another’, ( CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M) 5 In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundament 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 rated 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 fact 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, 5 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, 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 gard 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 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 rated 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 cretion 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. 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, al 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 gard 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 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 rated 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 cretion 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 s and 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. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “ 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 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 possib On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice 15. 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 Constitutio 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, whic 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 16. 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 CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M) 6 abovementioned case, it has been observed that “ 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 possib 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, whic 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 6 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 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 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 n 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 proceed o 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 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 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 le adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of rt 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 n 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 h 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 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document India. This constitutional right cannot by Hon’ble Apex court in Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354 17. involved in the instant case, is taken into consi conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 18. case, the present petition is hereby to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the above shall be subject to following conditions: (i) (ii) (iii) 27.02.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M) 7 India. This 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 Online SC 4354. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consi conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the etition 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 above subject to 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 him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time 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 (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prio of the trial Court; 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 7 be denied to the accused as mandated 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 ed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the sfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession 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 be denied to the accused as mandated Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, deration, 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 . The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the concession 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 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; r permission ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document