CRM-M-16393-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 CRM-M-16393-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 16.07.2026 Simarjit Singh @Babu ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J. (Oral) Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate has put in appearance and filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. 2. This petition is the first 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.60 dated 06.03.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 324(4), 191(3) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [Corresponding Sections 302, 427, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860] Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar. 3. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Baljinder Kaur’ hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the abovenamed complainant that on 05.03.2025 at about 04:40 P.M. her husband had gone to market along with his friend Jaspal Singh. As per complainant after some time she received a call that few Nihang persons VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16393-2026 (O&M) 2 had attacked her husband with sharp-edged weapon. As per complainant she immediately rushed to the spot where she saw several persons fleeing in an Innova car bearing Registration No.HR-05-R-6632. According to complainant her husband had suffered injuries in the abovementioned incident and succumbed to those injuries on the same day. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged, and that during the course of investigation the petitioner was arrested, from whose possession a stick was recovered. 5. Notice of motion. 6. 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. 7. Heard. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is already in custody for a period of one year three months and nine days and that the only role attributed to the petitioner is that he was part of the group of assailants and that at the time of incident he was carrying a stick in his hand. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the details of injury inflicted by the petitioner does not find mention in the FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16393-2026 (O&M) 3 has clean antecedent and trial is taking place at a slow pace as out of thirty three prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined so far. 9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel in the present case, charge has been framed against the petitioner on 01.12.2025 and thereafter, there is no delay in trial. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that the petitioner was member of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and therefore, he cannot wriggle out of the act of abovementioned assault. 10. The record has been perused carefully. 11. 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 one year three months and nine days; ii. that the petitioner has clean antecedent; iii. that the trial is taking place at a slow pace as out of thirty three witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined so far; iv. that the role attributed to the petitioner is vague and inconclusive. In fact there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, that he inflicted any injury on the person of injured; v. that, as per case developed by the prosecution the petitioner was carrying a stick at the time of incident, the same stick has been recovered; VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16393-2026 (O&M) 4 vi. that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vii. that the last petition for bail, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed more than eleven months ago; viii. that no test identification parade in the presence of Magistrate has been conducted in this case; 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; and xi. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 12. 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 VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16393-2026 (O&M) 5 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”. 13. 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- 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”. 14. 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 VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16393-2026 (O&M) 6 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”. 15. 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- 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16393-2026 (O&M) 7 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 2026.07.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document