State of Punjab v. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral)

been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.270 dated

02.12.2023for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 427, 148, 149, 307 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Corresponding Sections 115(2), 126(2), 324(4), 191(3), 190, 109 and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023], Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa.

#2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Balbir Singh’ hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant only’. It was stated by the abovenamed complainant that on 01.12.2023 at about 07:00 P.M. when he was going on his motorcycle along with Kala Singh son of Ginder Singh and Kuldeep Singh, near cremation ground on the periphery of their village, they were waylaid by Maddi Singh, Preet Singh, Harman Singh, Manga Singh and Kala Singh son of Surjit Singh. According to abovenamed CRM-M-37655-2026(O&M) 2 complainant they were armed with various weapons as Preet Singh was carrying a chopper (gandasa), Manga Singh a steel rod and remaining three persons wooden sticks. According to complainant, they all launched an attack upon him and inflicted various injuries on his person.

#3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of statement of complainant, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

#4. According to prosecution during the course of investigation, a supplementary statement of complainant was recorded, by the Investigating Officer, on 07.12.2023, wherein the complainant stated that petitioner was member of the group of assailants and that he had wrongly mentioned the name of Kala Singh son of Surjit Singh, instead of the name of petitioner. Notice of motion.

#6. 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.

#8. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the initial version of the FIR does not support the prosecution case with regard to involvement of petitioner in the commission of offence and that as an afterthought, i.e. one week after the incident, the name of petitioner has CRM-M-37655-2026(O&M) 3 been introduced in the present case. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the weapon allegedly used by the petitioner is the wooden stick and that any dangerous to life injury has not been attributed to the petitioner. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of five months and eighteen days and that injured has already been discharged from the hospital. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial is taking place at a slow pace as out of thirty one prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined so far.

#9. The learned State Counsel controverted abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel during the course of investigation on the basis of supplementary statement of co- accused, the name of petitioner has been specifically mentioned and that gravity of the offence, itself, shows that the petitioner was a member of a group of assailants, involved in the commission of serious nature of offence. The learned State Counsel has further contended that petitioner is a person who had been absconding for more than two years, after the dismissal of his application for anticipatory bail and that past conduct of the petitioner speaks in volumes about the scant respects the petitioner has for the rule of law.

#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:- CRM-M-37655-2026(O&M) 4 i. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of five months and eighteen days; ii. that co-accused namely Preet Singh and Harman Singh are already on bail; iii. that the role attributed to the co-accused is either on similar footing of the petitioner or on a lighter footing; iv. that out of thirty one prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined so far; 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 injured has already been discharged from the hospital; vii. that there is no likelihood that the trial may be concluded in near future; viii. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up 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.

#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(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 CRM-M-37655-2026(O&M) 5 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”.

#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 CRM-M-37655-2026(O&M) 6 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, 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 CRM-M-37655-2026(O&M) 7 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 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; (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

17.07.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No