[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mangal Singh @ Gauri vs State Of Punjab on 4 December, 2025
CRM-M-13656 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
224 CRM-M-13656 of 2025
Date of Decision: 04.12.2025
Mangal Singh @ Gauri ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.101 dated 31.10.2023 registered under Sections
302, 307, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act
(Section 201 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala,
District Kapurthala.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner along with
other co-accused, armed with deadly weapons, brutally attacked and caused
injuries to the complainant and his son with an intention to kill them, due to
which Vijay Kumar (son of the complainant) has died.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the
1 of 5
petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and he
has no concern with the said incident. He argued that the alleged occurrence
took place on 30.10.2023 but the FIR in question was registered on
31.10.2023 i.e. after a delay of 01 day, casting serious doubt on the
prosecution story. He further argued that the petitioner has been nominated
as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-
accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, vide DDR No.16 dated 06.01.2024 that too
after two months from the registration of FIR. Apart from the disclosure
statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the
offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-
accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He further
submits that even if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no
specific injury has been attributed to the present petitioner and he is alleged
to be only armed with datar. Further, co-accused Harman Singh @ Harman
Kalsi and Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi have already been granted the concession
of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide orders dated
25.10.2024 and 14.11.2024, respectively. The petitioner is in custody since
15.01.2024 and nothing is to be recovered from him. The investigation in
the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been
framed. He further submits that there are total 46 prosecution witnesses in
the case but none has been examined till date and as such, the trial will take
a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping
him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be
allowed.
2 of 5
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, relying upon the status
report, has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting
that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He argues
that the petitioner, along with other co-accused, was member of the unlawful
assembly, armed with deadly weapons, has participated in the crime. He has
further submitted that the petitioner is involved in multiple other cases
meaning thereby he is a habitual offender. However, he could not controvert
the fact that the petitioner has not inflicted any injury to the deceased and his
father (complainant).
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after
perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody
for the last more than 01 year and 10 months; investigation is complete;
challan stands presented; charges framed; no prosecution witness has been
examined; the complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial; the trial is
proceeding at snail's pace, and will take a long time to conclude. Thus, no
useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His
continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the
near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the
bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement
of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of
India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an exception".
3 of 5
7. The foundational concept of the criminal jurisprudence is to
ensure speedy trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated
that right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Speedy trial would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision
and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation against the
accused and expiring with the final verdict of the last Court.
8. In this regard, reference is being made to the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of right to speedy trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the following decision:- Akhtari Bi
Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) SCC (Crl) 1674, P. Ramachandra Rao Vs.
State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Babu Singh and others Vs. State of
U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579, Takht Singh and others Vs. State of M.P., (2001)
10 SCC 463; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2356 of 2010, Kushal Singh
Vs. State of U.P. (2JJ.) and Fazal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5
SCC 752.
9. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that
petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is
held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while
deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot
be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in
other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced herein-below:-
4 of 5
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal
antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out
the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged
and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away
from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
04.12.2025 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
