CRM-M No.12255 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 224 CRM-M No.12255 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 Davinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Manbir Singh Basra, Advocate for the complainant. 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.25 dated 25.04.2024 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code (Section 302 of IPC deleted and Section 304 of IPC added later on), Police Station Tibber, District Gurdaspur. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Amrik Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 24.04.2024 at about 07:30 pm, his brother ‘Kuldeep Singh’ had gone to the fields on combine harvester, and that on the way, near the highway, he saw that ‘Sadhu Singh’ s/o ‘Kapoor MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.12255 of 2026 (O&M) 2 Singh’, ‘Davinder Singh’ (petitioner herein) and ‘Lakhwinder Singh’ were present, who stopped his (complainant’s) brother. According to complainant, when his brother ‘Kuldeep Singh’ alighted from the combine, ‘Sadhu Singh’ caught hold of his hair, and thereafter, the petitioner gave punch blows on the chest of his brother and ‘Lakwinder Singh’ hurled abuses to him. As per complainant, due to punch blows given by ‘Davinder Singh’ (the petitioner herein), his brother fell down on the ground and when complainant rushed to rescue his brother, the abovementioned assailants fled from the spot. It was further stated by the complainant that thereafter, he arranged vehicle and took his brother to ‘Abrol Hospital’, where doctors declared his brother to be dead. 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. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation all accused, including the petitioner, were arrested. 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. 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. Mr. Manbir Singh Basra, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of complainant. He has filed a Power of Attorney. The same be taken on record. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.12255 of 2026 (O&M) 3 7. Heard. 8. The record has been perused carefully. 9. A perusal of 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 2 years, 2 months and 24 days; ii) that as per post mortem report the cause of death of the deceased was cardiac arrest; iii) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to similarly placed co-accused, namely Lakhwinder Singh; iv) that there is no convincing evidence on record to show that injuries, inflicted by the petitioner were responsible for the death of victim, as the cause of death was cardiac arrest; v) that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents; vi) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vii) that trial is taking place at a very slow pace, as in this case charge was framed on 25.11.2024 and there are 13 prosecution witnesses, out of which, not even a single witness has been examined so far; MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.12255 of 2026 (O&M) 4 viii) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any 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. 10. 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.12255 of 2026 (O&M) 5 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 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”. 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.12255 of 2026 (O&M) 6 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 an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another’ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 14. 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. 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 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.12255 of 2026 (O&M) 7 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. 16. 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 21.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document