CRM-M-15945-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CRM-M-15945-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 16.07.2026 Gurpreet Singh @Lucky ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J. (Oral) This petition is the second petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.283 dated 28.07.2021, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar. 2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Avtar Singh’ hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the abovenamed complainant that on 26.07.2021 at about 11:30 P.M. he heard a commotion outside his house and when he came out, he found that his son Karamjit Singh @Happy, standing near the gate of his house was under assault, by Gurpreet Singh @Lucky (the petitioner herein), who was armed with kirch (sharp-edged weapon). According to complainant Manpreet Singh @ Money armed with a small gandasi was accompanying VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.16 19:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15945-2026 (O&M) 2 Gurpreet Singh @Lucky. The complainant further stated that four blows on the stomach of his son were inflicted by the petitioner, whereas the co- accused Manpreet Singh @Money with the reverse side of the axe inflicted two blows on the head of Karamjit Singh @Happy. As per complainant, in the abovementioned assault Karamjit Singh @Happy suffered multiple injuries, which proved to be fatal. 3. 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. 4. Notice of motion. 5. appears 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 petitioner is already in custody for a period of four years eleven months & fourteen days and that he has clean antecedents. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of twenty prosecution witnesses, only eleven have been examined so far, and one witness has been given up. 8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel since all the VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.16 19:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15945-2026 (O&M) 3 material witnesses have already been examined the trial is likely to be concluded in near future. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that there are very specific and categorical allegation against the petitioner, and that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have supported the prosecution case. 9. The record has been perused carefully. 10. 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 decision:- i. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of four years eleven months and fourteen days; ii. that the statement of all the material witnesses have already been recorded; iii. that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; iv. that delay in trial amounts to breach of right of speedy trial, available to the petitioner; v. that the former bail petition of the petitioner was not decided on merits; vi. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; 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 to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.16 19:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15945-2026 (O&M) 4 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(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 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 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 Vs. Central Bureau of Investiga- VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.16 19:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15945-2026 (O&M) 5 tion and Another’, (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 Chhat- tisgarh’, 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 ac- cused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credi- bility 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 In- VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.16 19:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15945-2026 (O&M) 6 dia. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and An- other”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 15. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, in- volved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present peti- tion 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 abovementioned concession 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 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 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 the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 16.07.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.16 19:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document