CRM-M-30427-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 CRM-M-30427-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.07.2026 Sudhir ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The learned State Counsel has filed reply. The same be taken on record, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. The cost be deposited in the A/c No.45115269583 being maintained by ‘Punjab and Haryana High Court Dispensary Welfare Fund’. 2. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same, too, be taken on record. 3. This is first 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.93 dated 06.09.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103, 140(1), 190, 191(3), GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30427-2026 (O&M) 2 115(2), 332 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Fazilka. 4. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Ramesh Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that on 06.09.2025 at about 09:30-10:00 am, his cousin ‘Sunil Kumar’ armed with steel rod along with ‘Ravinder Kumar’ son of Shesh Karan, ‘Pawan Kumar’, and ‘Mani Ram’ came to their house on a motorcycle and exhorted to teach a lesson to the brother of complainant, namely ‘Ravinder Kumar’, for stealing the electric motor from their tubewell. According to complainant, when he (complainant) and his mother ‘Vidya Devi’ tried to rescue ‘Ravinder Kumar’, one of the assailants, namely Sunil Kumar, pushed ‘Vidya Devi’ on the ground and they forcibly picked- up ‘Ravinder Kumar’, took him away on the motorcycle and that they were joined by ‘Vishal’, ‘Umesh’ and ‘Sudhir’ (the petitioner herein), who , too, arrived on the motorcycle. 5. The complainant further stated that his mother ‘Vidya Devi’ had suffered injuries, and therefore, she was admitted in Civil Hospital Abohar, and that at about 03:30 pm, when he was present with his mother in the hospital, he saw that Sunil Kumar and ‘Ravinder Kumar’ had brought his brother to the Emergency Ward and they were accompanied by ‘Vishal’ and ‘Umesh’ on separate motorcycle. It was further stated by the complainant that his brother was in a critical condition, and was declared dead. While alleging that his brother was killed by the above-named assailants on the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30427-2026 (O&M) 3 pretext of theft of their electric motor, the action was sought by the complainant. 6. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 7. Heard. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, who has clean antecedents, has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than nine months and twenty seven days, and that the investigation in this case is already complete. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, and that detention of petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to produce any fruitful result. 9. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that in fact, the petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of offence, and that the deceased, who was a drug addict, was beaten up by the police official. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, when condition of deceased deteriorated in police station, the complainant and other villagers were called in the police station and they were instructed to get the injured Ravinder (the deceased) admitted in the hospital. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30427-2026 (O&M) 4 10. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR, and even in the statement of complainant, the name of the petitioner does not find mention, amongst the persons who brought the deceased to the hospital. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the CCTV footage, being relied upon by the prosecution, the petitioner is not present. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no weapon has been assigned to the petitioner and even his role in the commission of offence has not been specifically defined. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact the cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest and that the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. 11. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, there are serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to commission of an offence of murder, and that in view of gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 12. The record has been perused carefully. 13. 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 nine months and twenty seven days; ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30427-2026 (O&M) 5 iii) that in the FIR, no weapon of offence has been assigned to the petitioner; iv) that the FIR is silent with regard to alleged injury inflicted by the petitioner on the person of deceased; v) that the medical opinion, sought by the Investigating Officer with regard to cause of death, shows that as per Medical Officer, the cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest; vi) that as per PMR, there was no specific opinion with regard to any corresponding external injury, on the person of deceased, which could have been responsible for the abovementioned cardiopulmonary arrest; vii) that no motive for causing death of the petitioner has been attributed to the petitioner; viii) that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; ix) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; x) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose; xi) 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 xii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 14. 14. 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 also relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30427-2026 (O&M) 6 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”. 15. 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 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30427-2026 (O&M) 7 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”. 16. 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”. 17. 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. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30427-2026 (O&M) 8 18. 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. 19. 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 22.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.23 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document