This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ & Anr.

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.84 dated 11.08.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 109, 3(5), 191(3) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Qila Lal Singh, District Gurdaspur.

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Joga Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 11.08.2025, when he was sitting on the counter of his medical store, a motorcycle carrying two CRM-M-19107-2026 (O&M) 2 persons came there. As per complainant, out of abovesaid two persons, one fired a gunshot and injured him.

It is the case of 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, Sarabjit Singh and Lovepreet Singh were found to be the main shooters and they were arrested by the police. They suffered disclosure statement after their arrest that they were hired by one Amritpal Singh for carrying on attack on Joga Singh. Such attack was carried out because Joga Singh had refused to meet the extortion demands. As per prosecution, Sawinder Singh (the petitioner herein )supplied two pistols and 17 bullets to other accused namely Sukhman Singh @Jashan @Jashanpreet Singh and Prabhjot Singh who further provided the same to the main shooters and one such pistol was used for carrying out attack on Joga Singh.

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.

Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of seven months and ten days and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per prosecution story, Sarabjit Singh and Lovepreet Singh @Love CRM-M-19107-2026 (O&M) 3 were responsible for carrying out the shooting and injuring the complainant, whereas the role attributed to the present petitioner is only that he supplied weapon used by prime accused, namely Sarabjit Singh and Lovepreet Singh @Love. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in view of smaller role attributed to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail.

The learned State Counsel controverted abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that the petitioner was responsible for supplying weapons to the main accused and that the petitioner does not have clean antecedents.

The record has been perused carefully. 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 in custody for a period of seven months and ten days; ii) that the prime accused namely Sarabjit Singh and Lovepreet Singh @Love have already been accorded the benefit of bail by this Court; iii) that as per prosecution case, the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence; iv) that it is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner himself was responsible for firing the gunshots; v) that the only evidence collected against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence as the same was recorded when the co-accused was in custody; CRM-M-19107-2026 (O&M) 4 vi) that the investigation is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as the charge in this case is yet to be framed; viii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup 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; and x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

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 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 CRM-M-19107-2026 (O&M) 5 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

.

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. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice

.

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 CRM-M-19107-2026 (O&M) 6 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

.

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.

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 for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.