Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082337
CRM-M No.29369 of 2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
222
*****
CRM-M No.29369 of 2024
Date of decision : 3.7.2024
Ranjit Singh .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. BBS Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab
---
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
This petition under section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant
of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.6 dated 25.1.2024 under
Sections 308, 323, 148 and 149 of IPC (Section 452 IPC added later on),
registered at Police Station Qila Lal Singh, Police District Batala.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only injury
attributed to the petitioner is with the reverse side of datar on the left leg
which has been declared simple in nature. It is on that ground, he prays
for release on regular bail after having incarcerated for more than 4
months by now. Investigation is complete and no fruitful purpose will be
served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
3. Learned State counsel at the same time has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner and is also not in a position to
controvert the fact that the petitioner has given a blow on the left leg from
the reverse side of datar, which caused injury no.3 as per medical legal
report and the same has been declared simple in nature
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has
given considerable thought on statements particularly the fact that injury
no.3 attributed to the petitioner was with the reverse side of datar and the
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082337
same has been declared simple in nature, therefore, offence under Section
308 IPC could not be attracted against him.
5. Apart from that, after having completed the investigation,
challan stands filed on 30.3.2024 with the list of total 16 prosecution
witnesses, wherein next date is 8.7.2024. As the charges are yet to be
framed, the trial is prolonged and likely to take long time and detaining
the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would amount to
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, wherein bail is a rule
and jail is an exception and it would also violate the principle of right to
speedy trial and expeditious disposal under Article 21 of Constitution of
India, as has been time and again discussed by this Court, while realising
the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail
and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
7. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
8. The petition stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
3.7.2024
Ashwani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
2 of 2
