IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT Bohar Singh State of Punjab [ CORAM: Argued by SURYA PARTAP SINGH under Section 483 of been filed for the commission of of 511, 201, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran. 2. ‘Inspector/SHO he was leading a reliable source gave him a ‘Gurpreet’, ‘Bohar Singh’ formed a gang and breaking the house. According to informer they all were armed with CRM-M-14426-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Singh @Bohar VERSUS Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Ms. Shivani Sahni, Advocate Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. 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 Sections 511, 201, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of Inspector/SHO Gurcharan Singh’, who reported that eading a team of police officials, reliable source gave him a tip-off that ‘Gurmukh Singh’, ‘Gurpreet’, ‘Bohar Singh’ (petitioner herein) formed a gang and that they are involved in and breaking the house. According to informer they all were armed with 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14426-2026 (O&M) Reserved on : 20.03.2026 Pronounced on : 24.03.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG Punjab. ***** first petition, filed by the petitioner Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.26 dated 26.02.2023 fence punishable under Sections 380, 457, 395, 427, 511, 201, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of who reported that on 26.02.2023 when officials, deputed for patrolling duty off that ‘Gurmukh Singh’, ‘Manpreet’, (petitioner herein) and ‘Mandeep Singh’ had and that they are involved in crimes like robbery, snatching and breaking the house. According to informer they all were armed with (O&M) Petitioner ..... Respondent petitioner has 26.02.2023, 380, 457, 395, 427, 511, 201, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of on 26.02.2023 when duty, a ‘Manpreet’, Singh’ had crimes like robbery, snatching and breaking the house. According to informer they all were armed with GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document pistols, dattar (sickle) and kirpan (sword), and that they were carrying a cutter, and were presen Road, Tarn Taran. 3. information the police team raided the Kotak Mahindra Bank and found persons armed with various weapons, who were apprehended by It is the case of the pr formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken 4. 5. 6. the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) CRM-M-14426-2026 (O&M) 2 pistols, dattar (sickle) and kirpan (sword), and that they were carrying a cutter, and were present near the branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank at Bath Road, Tarn Taran. According to prosecution, in view of above information the police team raided the Kotak Mahindra Bank and found persons armed with various weapons, who were apprehended by It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken Heard. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a : - that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than three years; ii) antecedents; iii) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the similarly placed co-accused; iv) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; vi) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose; 2 pistols, dattar (sickle) and kirpan (sword), and that they were carrying a t near the branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank at Bath to prosecution, in view of abovementioned information the police team raided the Kotak Mahindra Bank and found five persons armed with various weapons, who were apprehended by the police. osecution that in view of abovementioned recovery the formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 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 for a that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more the petitioner has clean has already been accorded to the left to be recovered from the possession that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not pistols, dattar (sickle) and kirpan (sword), and that they were carrying a t near the branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank at Bath mentioned five the police. mentioned recovery the the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more lean has already been accorded to the left to be recovered from the possession detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document vii) viii) 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court Uttar Pradesh and another relevant, wherein it has been 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 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 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 be 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 j 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 CRM-M-14426-2026 (O&M) 3 vii) 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 viii) that there is nothing on record the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial In the present case, the principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “ Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, relevant, wherein it has been observed that “ 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 sed 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 be 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 3 that there 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. the principles of law laid down by in the case of “Dataram versus State of ”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also 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 sed 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 nd 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 be 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 udicial 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 that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the to show that if released on bail, the principles of law laid down by the Dataram versus State of also 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 sed 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 nd 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 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 udicial 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bail to an accused person is the right thing to do circumstances of a case 8. India in the case of ‘ Investigation and Another’, ( In the abovementioned case, it has been observed 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 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 On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice 9. 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 Con 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 syst masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides CRM-M-14426-2026 (O&M) 4 bail to an accused person is the right thing to do circumstances of a case”. The principles laid down by the in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’, ( In the abovementioned case, it has been observed 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 possible adjudication by way of trial. 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 valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides 4 bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of are also relevant in this case In the 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 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 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 stitution 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 em, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides on the facts and in 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 weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a 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 a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of reme 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 stitution 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 em, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently 10. 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 by Hon’ble Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354 11. involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to conclusion that the petitioner present petition deserves to be allowed. 12. case, the present petition is hereby to be released on b satisfaction of shall be subject to following conditions: (i) (ii) CRM-M-14426-2026 (O&M) 5 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 an 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 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 consideration, it leads to conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail 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 satisfaction 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 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 of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and , till the final decision of the trial; and 5 many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic an 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 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 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 . However the abovementioned concession he petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any hreat 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. shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish oncerned and , till the final decision of the trial; 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 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 , and that the Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the ordered to the . However the abovementioned concession he petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any hreat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish , till the final decision of the trial; GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (iii) 24.03.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-14426-2026 (O&M) 6 (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 6 that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document