AMIT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA

Judgment

#1. This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This

petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.0301 dated

24.09.2024 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Chhapar, District Yamuna Nagar.

#2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Suresh Pal’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named CRM-M-23316-2026 complainant that on 22.09.2024, at about 09:30 PM, when his wife was talking to her daughter-in-law at her home, just outside their house, ‘Amit Kumar @ Danny’ (the petitioner herein), ‘Abhishek @ Suraj’ and ‘Armaan Singh’ arrived in drunken state. According to complainant they started hurling abuses to his elder son namely ‘Vishwas’ and when ‘Vishwas’ objected to them, they launched an assault upon ‘Vishwas’ with the help of bricks and inflicted injuries on his person. As per complainant, when his wife ‘Gulzar Kaur’ tried to rescue her son, she, too, came under assault by ‘Armann Singh’, and that’ thereafter, ‘Amit’ hit her with the help of brick on her nose and ‘Abhishek’ on her right leg. According to complainant on account of above-mentioned injuries his wife lost conscious and when she was shifted to hospital, she passed away.

#3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

#5. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case as per the contents of FIR, itself, no dangerous weapon, whatsoever, was used by the assailants, and that even the medico-legal report shows that injuries suffered by the deceased were simple in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the medico-legal report further shows that there was no serious or grievous injury suffered by the deceased, and that there was a possibility that physical assault acted as a significant precipitating factor, contributing to the onset of the fatal cardiac event due to Acute Coronary Insufficiency in a pre-existing case of atherosclerosis. As per Medical Officer, the physical and psychological stress CRM-M-23316-2026 associated with the incident likely exacerbated the underlying cardiac condition, leading to terminal event.

#6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner or his co-accused were aware of this fact that the deceased was facing any medical condition, and that the action of the petitioner, who inflicted simple injury with the help of bricks only, shows that neither there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to kill the wife of complainant nor there was any preparation nor there was use of any weapon.

#7. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean antecedents and he has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and nine months, and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of eighteen prosecution witnesses, four are yet to be examined.

#8. The learned State counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have controverted the above-mentioned arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that there are very specific and categorical allegations with regard to identity and role of the petitioner in the commission of offence. According to learned counsel for the complainant the contents of the post-mortem report shows that assault launched by the petitioner and his co-accused, was responsible for creating a situation, wherein the deceased suffered cardiac arrest and passed away. As per learned counsel for the complainant since the action of the petitioner had direct link with the cause of death of deceased, this plea of learned counsel for the petitioner had got no force that there was no intention of the petitioner, to kill the deceased. CRM-M-23316-2026

#9. In addition to above, it has been contended by learned State counsel that the trial is taking place at a reasonably fast pace as out of eighteen prosecution witnesses, fourteen have already been examined. According to learned State counsel, if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence, and therefore, at least till the recording of statement of medical officer, the benefit of bail should not be extended to the petitioner.

#11. 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 already in custody for a period of more than one year, nine months and fourteen days; ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iii) that as per facts set-out by the prosecution in the FIR, the petitioner was not carrying any weapon at the time of commission of offence; iv) that the injuries found on the person of deceased were simple in nature; v) that the injury caused by the petitioner and co-accused were not directly responsible for the death of deceased; vi) that all the material witnesses in this case have already been examined; vii) that investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; viii) that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; ix) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose; CRM-M-23316-2026 x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; xi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

#12. 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 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”. CRM-M-23316-2026

#13. 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”.

#14. 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”.

#15. 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, CRM-M-23316-2026 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.

#16. 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.

#17. 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 abovesaid 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

16.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable