CRM-M-29662-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 CRM-M-29662-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2026 LAKHWINDER SINGH ALIAS RAVI ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ..... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Nikhil Deora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. 1. This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.102 dated 28.07.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 351 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Police Station Moga, District Moga. 2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Ramji @ Rana’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 19.07.2025 at about 07:50 P.M. when he was heading to a village shop for the purchase of grocery, he was waylaid by ‘Lakhwinder Singh @ Ravi’ (the petitioner herein), who was armed with sharp edged iron VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.21 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29662-2026 (O&M) 2 stick. According to complainant in the above-mentioned assault, multiple injuries were inflicted on his person, and that he was rescued by his brother. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. Short reply and custody certificate, filed by learned State counsel, be taken on record. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is delay of nine days in reporting the matter to the police, and that out to five injuries which were found on the person of complainant at the time of medico-legal examination only one injury was found on vital part of the body i.e. back side of the head, whereas remaining were on the lower part of his body. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no intention to kill the complainant, and that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than eleven months and eighteen days. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that except one more case under Section 307 IPC, the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of eleven prosecution witnesses, only two have been examined so far. 7. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case with the help of sharp edged weapon as many as five injuries were inflicted on the person of complainant, and that out of above-mentioned five, four injuries have been declared to be grievous in nature by the Medical Officer. It has also been contended by learned State counsel that the offence, committed by the VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.21 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29662-2026 (O&M) 3 petitioner, is grievous in nature, and therefore, in view of combined impact of all the above-mentioned factors, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 8. The record has been perused carefully. 9. 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 more than eleven months and eighteen days; ii) that except one case under Section 307 IPC, the petitioner has clean antecedents; iii) that there is delay of nine days in reporting the matter to the police; iv) that investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; v) that the weapon of offence has already been recovered; vi) that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital; vii) that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of eleven prosecution witnesses, only two have been examined so far; viii) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose; ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.21 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29662-2026 (O&M) 4 10. 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 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”. 11. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 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 VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.21 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29662-2026 (O&M) 5 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”. 12. 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”. 13. 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 the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.21 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29662-2026 (O&M) 6 14. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved 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 petition deserves to be allowed. 15. 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 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. 16. All other pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed off, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 20.07.2026 vipin Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.21 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document