CRM-M No.27485 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 234 CRM-M No.27485 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 Rahul Singh @ Rahul Kumar @ Sanju ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Sarabjit Singh Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This is third petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.18 dated 22.03.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 328, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 61 of Excise Act, Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur. 2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Lakhbir Kaur’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. According to prosecution on 22.03.2024 the statement of complainant was recorded. The pith and substance of the above mentioned statement of the complainant was that in the evening of 21.03.2024 the health of her husband deteriorated as he had consumed liquor. According to complainant, thereafter, he passed away lateron. The complainant further MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.27485 of 2026 (O&M) 2 alleged that after cremation she came to know from her brother-in-law, namely ‘Dhian Singh’ that liquor was purchased by her deceased husband from the accused ‘Soma Kaur’. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above mentioned statement formal FIR of this case lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation when accused ‘Soma Kaur’ was arrested and interrogated she suffered a disclosure statement wherein she disclosed that the liquor sold by her to the deceased husband of complainant, was supplied to her by ‘Rahul’ (the petitioner herein) and ‘Prdeep Singh’. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of further investigation it was revealed that ‘Gurlal Singh’, ‘Harmanpret Singh’, ‘Tarsem Singh’ and ‘Arshdeep Singh’ were the persons who had supplied the abovesaid liquor to ‘Pardeep Singh’ and the petitioner. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than two years, three months and fifteen days. It has also been contended by learned MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.27485 of 2026 (O&M) 3 counsel for the petitioner that the similarly placed co-accused, namely ‘Arshdeep Singh’ has already been accorded the benefit of bail. It has been further contented that the trial is taking place at a slow pace as out of 32 prosecution witnesses, twenty seven are yet to be examined. 8. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that firstly the petitioner does not have clean antecedents as he has been facing prosecution with regard to similar type of offence vide FIR No.44 dated 22.03.2024. It has also been contended by the learned State counsel that there is technical evidence also to support the prosecution case, and that the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature. 9. The record has been perused carefully. 10. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:- i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than two years, three months and fifteen days; ii) that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was responsible for the sale of spurious liquor, to the deceased husband of the complainant; iii) that the only evidence collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner, is the disclosure statement of co-accused of the petitioner, and there is a question mark with regard to credibility & admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence, as the same was recorded when the co-accused of the petitioner was in police custody. Since pursuant to above- mentioned disclosure statement recovery of any incriminating material or discovery of fact did not take place, prima facie the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.27485 of 2026 (O&M) 4 abovementioned statement appears to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam; iv) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to similarly placed accused Arshdeep Singh; v) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vi) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of thirty two prosecution witnesses only, twenty seven are yet to be examined; vii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up 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; ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 11. 11. 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 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.27485 of 2026 (O&M) 5 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”. 12. 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 with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”. 13. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.27485 of 2026 (O&M) 6 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”. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.27485 of 2026 (O&M) 7 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. 17. 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 14.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.15 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document