Jasvir Singh v. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab

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.91 dated 18.07.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur.

#2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Satgur Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that 10-15 days prior to the incident, Jasvir Singh (the petitioner herein), brought a refrigerator to the shop of ‘Gurdarshan Singh’ for repair, but Gurdarshan Singh refused to fix the same, which lead to a heated arguments between the two. As per complainant, few days later, ‘Jasvir’ visited the shop of ‘Gurdarshan Singh’ again and threatened him either to vacate the shop and leave the village or face consequences. Later on, i.e. July CRM-M No.15681 of 2026 (O&M) 2 17, 2024, ‘Jasvir’ (the petitioner herein), armed with a 'Kirpan' (sword) entered the shop of ‘Gurdarshan Singh’ engaged him in an altercation and then assaulted him with the sword, caused injury on his neck which led to his death.

#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.

#4. The learned State counsel have filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record.

#6. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean antecedents and he has already suffered incarceration in the present case for a period of more than one year, eleven months and fifteen days. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the trial is not taking place at a very slow pace as out of 19 prosecution witnesses only three witnesses have been examined so far. While claiming that the right of speedy trial, available to the petitioner, is being violated, on the ground of prolonged incarceration, benefit of bail has been sought.

#7. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that progress in the trial is at a satisfactory pace, and that the charge in the present case has been framed against the petitioner on 07.01.2025.

#9. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the CRM-M No.15681 of 2026 (O&M) 3 present petition:- i) that the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than one year, eleven months and fifteen days; ii) that the trial is not taking place at an appropriate pace, as out of 19 only 3 prosecution witnesses have been examined in the last more than one and half year since the charge against the iii) iv) petitioner was framed; that the petitioner has clean antecedents; that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; v) that due to delay in trial the fundamental right of speedy trial, guaranteed to the petitioner, is being violated; vi) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

#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 CRM-M No.15681 of 2026 (O&M) 4 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 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 CRM-M No.15681 of 2026 (O&M) 5 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 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 CRM-M No.15681 of 2026 (O&M) 6 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 the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; 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

06.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable