CRM-M-44855-2026(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 237 CRM-M-44855-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 18.08.2026 Tirath Singh Pahal @Terry ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & Anr. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 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.53 dated 21.03.2026, Police Station Sadar Nakodar, District Jalandhar (Rural) for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 308(5) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [Corresponding Sections 386 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860]. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Baljinder Kaur’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was alleged by the abovenamed complainant that in her complaint that on 12.01.2026 at about 11:30 P.M., she received a call from a foreign-based VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.08.19 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44855-2026(O&M) 2 mobile number and the caller demanded a ransom of Rs.2 crore. As per complainant, the caller claimed that he was a member of Goldy Brar group. The complainant further alleged that she did not take the call seriously but after two months another call was received and a demand of Rs.1.5 crore was made. 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, supplementary statement of complainant was recorded wherein she raised a suspicion, about the involvement of petitioner in the commission of abovementioned crime, and therefore, the petitioner was taken into custody. 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. Mr. Barjinder Singh, Advocate has put in appearance and filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent No.2. The same be taken on record. 7. Heard. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean antecedent who has already suffered incarceration for a period of four months and fourteen days. It has also been contended by VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.08.19 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44855-2026(O&M) 3 learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is real aunt of the petitioner (being sister of his mother) and that on account of some family discord, allegation against the petitioner were levelled. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that now with the intervention of respectables of the society parties have arrived at a compromise and the complainant is not interested in pursuing the abovementioned case against the petitioner. 9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel the offence is non-compoundable and therefore, on the basis of compromise the benefit of bail cannot be accorded to the petitioner. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that allegation against the petitioner are serious in nature and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 10. The learned counsel for the complainant has opted not to controvert the abovementioned arguments. It has been conceded by learned counsel for the complainant that parties have arrived at a compromise. 11. The record has been perused carefully. 12. 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 four months and fourteen days; ii. that the offence is triable by Magistrate; iii. that the petitioner has clean antecedent; VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.08.19 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44855-2026(O&M) 4 iv. that except the disclosure statement of petitioner there is no evidence on record to show his involvement in the commission of crime; v. that investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, 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 detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up 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. 13. 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 2026.08.19 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44855-2026(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”. 14. 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”. 15. 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 said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.08.19 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44855-2026(O&M) 6 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”. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.08.19 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44855-2026(O&M) 7 (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 18.08.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.08.19 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document