Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026
CRM-M-4208-202
2026 (O&M) -1-
216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
CRM
CRM-M-4208-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 23.04.2026
Harbhajan Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.
M JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Harsh Chopra,
Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.
-.-
Surya Partap Singh, J.
1. 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. No.24 dated 24.02.2004,, for the commission of offence punishable punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 148/149 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Morinda, District Ropar, Punjab.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Z Zora Singh,, hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated by the above-named named complainant that on 24.02.2004 at about 7:00 PM his son, namely 'Paramjit Paramjit Singh', Singh' had gone to meet Avatar Singh (accused in this case) at his Village Dhoomcherri and did did not return thereafter. As per complainant, when he visited the house of Avtar Singh, Singh, he found the motor motor-cycle cycle of Paramjit Singh parked outside the house, and that Paramjit Singh was lying on the floor in a pool of blood, with his hands and feet tied with a cloth inside the house of Avtar Singh.
Singh
TRIPTI SAINI
2026.04.24 09:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-4208-202
2026 (O&M) -2-
The complainant further stated that Amar Singh armed with datar,, Balbir Singh with a sword, Jaspinder J Singh with stick and Harbhajan Singh ((the petitioner-
petitioner herein) with stick and hockey stick were inflicting injuri injuries es on the person of Paramjit Singh and that on account of the injuries suffered in the above-said said incident, Paramjit Singh passed away.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above above-mentioned mentioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to the prosecution during the course of investigation, the petitioner was found to be innocent and therefore, therefore, in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the petitioner was not prosecuted.
4. It is relevant to mention here that the trial commenced against the other accused and during the course of trial an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was filed.
filed On consideration of above-mentioned mentioned application, the learned trial Court summoned the present petitioner as one the accused in the present case.
5. Heard.
6. The he record has been perused carefully.
7. 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 decision:: -
i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than 07 months and 13 days;
days
ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;
iii) that the petitioner petitioner was declared innocent by the Investigating agency and therefore, therefore his detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose;
purpose
iv) that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be rec recovered overed from the possession of petitioner;TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-4208-202 2026 (O&M) -3-
v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of 22 prosecution witnesses only two have been examined examined, so far;
vi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and
vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.
8. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Dataram "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 "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 (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 ou ourr 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".
TRIPTI SAINI case 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4208-202 2026 (O&M) -4- 9. The principles laid
laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another', (2022) 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 rrarity, arity, 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 ultimat ultimatee acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".
injustice
10. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that "if if an accused is to get a final 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' Hon'ble 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".
efficiently
11. 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 TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4208-202 2026 (O&M) -5- constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another", 2024 SCC On Online line SC 4354.
12. 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.
13. 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.
Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:-
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 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 decisio decision of the trial; and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.
April 23, 2026 (SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
TRIPTI SAINI
2026.04.24 09:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document