1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 CRM-M-42621-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.08.2026 Gurdit Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Ms. Meena, Advocate for Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. . ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for bail is 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.69 dated 30.04.2026, Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar Rural, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 25(8) of Arms Act and Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Baldev Singh’, who reported that on 30.04.2026 at about 09:00 pm, when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, he received a tip-off from a reliable source that ‘Sukhwinder Singh @Galli’ and ‘Satnam Singh @Dinesh @Rinda’ were involved in illegal sale of firearms, and that they were travelling on a motorcycle to deliver illegal GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 pistols. According to above-named police officer, in view of abovementioned information, the police party got alerted, set-up a picket, where the motorcycle of above-named two persons was intercepted. It was further reported that from the possession of ‘Sukhwinder Singh @Galli’, .30 bore pistol and from the possession of ‘Satnam Singh @Dinesh @Rinda’, Rs.50,000/- cash were recovered. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned weapon and cash, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of weapon, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were completed, and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation the accused ‘Sukhwinder Singh @Galli’ suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he disclosed that two more pistols and Rs.2 lacs cash were in possession of present petitioner. It is the further case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned disclosure statement, the petitioner was arrested. 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. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that instant case is one of the unique case, wherein without there being a complainant/victim and there being no attempt to commit murder, Section 109 of BNS has been invoked. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the case built-up by the prosecution, for the commission of offence under Section 109 of BNS, is on the foundation that the pistol recovered in this case was for the purpose of committing murder. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than three months, and that the petitioner has clean antecedents and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of bail. 8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. While referring to the contents of order, passed by the learned Sessions Judge while dealing with application for bail of the petitioner, it has been contended by learned State Counsel that there are allegations for the commission of offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS against the petitioner. As per learned State Counsel, the total custody period of the petitioner is barely three months, which cannot lead to a conclusion that there is delay in trial. In view of above, the learned State Counsel has sought for dismissal of present petition. 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: - GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than three months; ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iii) that except the alleged allegation of recovery of pistol from co- accused, there is no allegation that any attempt to commit murder of any human being was made by the petitioner or his co-accused; iv) that there being no attempt to commit murder, no injury was caused to anybody; v) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vi) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; vii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose; viii) 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 ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 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 also 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 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 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 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. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 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 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”. 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 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. 15. 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. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 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 07.08.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.08 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document