CRM-M No.28022 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 233 CRM-M No.28022 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 Kunal @ Kannu @ Kunal Gill ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.165 dated 22.06.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 127(6) [Sections 105, 238 and 3(5) were added later on] and Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Dina Nagar, District Gurdaspur. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Pawan Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above named complainant that his son, namely ‘Harshit’ had left home on 16.06.2025 at about 12.00 noon, and thereafter, got missing. According to complainant later on his dead body was discovered and it was found that the cause of death of ‘Harshit’ was over dose of drug. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.13 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.28022 of 2026 (O&M) 2 3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and once the investigation was initiated on 23.06.2025 the supplementary statement of complainant was recorded who informed the police that the over dose of drug was administered to his son by the present petitioner. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent- State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. He has filed custody certificate of the petitioner and reply to the petition. The same be taken on record. 6. Heard. 7. The record has been perused carefully. 8. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:- i) that the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than one year; ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iii) that the instant case is a case wherein there is no eye-witness account; iv) that except the confessional statement of the petitioner himself, and the supplementary statement of complainant, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime; MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.13 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.28022 of 2026 (O&M) 3 v) that the supplementary statement of the complainant does not carry a good probative value, as the complainant was not present, when drug was administered to his son; vi) that the confessional statement of the petitioner appears to be inadmissible in evidence, as the same was recorded when the petitioner was already in custody and pursuant to above mentioned confessional statement nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of petitioner; vii) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; viii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of 17 prosecution witnesses not even a single witness has been examined; ix) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; xi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 9. 9. 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) 3 SCC 22, 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 accused with regard to some specific offences but that is MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.13 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.28022 of 2026 (O&M) 4 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 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 in the circumstances of a case”. 10. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 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 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.13 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.28022 of 2026 (O&M) 5 with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”. 11. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 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 many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. 12. 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 an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another’ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 13. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.13 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.28022 of 2026 (O&M) 6 to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be 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 from disclosing 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 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 prior permission of trial Court. 15. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 13.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.13 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document