[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akash Alias Kashi vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 2026
CRM-M No.13304 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
235
*****
CRM-M No.13304 of 2026
Date of decision : 9.4.2026
Date of uploading : 9.4.2026
Akash @ Kashi .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Yaseen Sethi, Advocate and
Ms. Akshita Nanda, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.83 dated
6.6.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 506,
148, 149, 120-B of IPC (Charges framed under Sections 148, 149, 120-B,
302, 506 and 201 of IPC on 4.1.2025), registered at Police Station
Division No.2, District Pathankot.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that complainant,
namely, Raj Kumar, has alleged that on 03.06.2024, when the deceased
(Sunny alias Landa- brother of the complainant) returned home after
plying his auto-rickshaw, he appeared distressed and informed the
complainant that all five accused persons, including the present petitioner,
had quarreled with him regarding the picking up of passengers. It is
further alleged that on 05.06.2024, while the brother of the complainant
was present in the street, the complainant heard a hue and cry and
immediately reached the spot along with his nephew, Abhishek Kumar.
Upon reaching there, the complainant allegedly witnessed that co-
accused- Harpreet Singh @ Happy, who was armed with an iron datar
(billhook), inflicted blows using both the reverse and the sharp-edged side
on the left arm of Sunny alias Landa. It is further alleged that co-accused
- Ranjit Singh alias Daddu inflicted datar blows on the right arm of the
complainant; co-accused- Sahib Singh alias Saabi inflicted datar blows
on the left leg of the deceased; co-accused- Akash alias Kashi (petitioner
herein) inflicted datar blows on the right leg; and Honey inflicted datar
blows on the back and chest of the brother of the complainant, as a result
of which he fell down on the street.
The complainant and his nephew, Abhishek Kumar, raised an
alarm, whereupon the accused persons, including the present petitioner,
fled from the spot in a car. The injured was immediately taken to the
hospital, where he was declared brought dead.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 6.6.2024. Learned counsel has iterated that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned
counsel has argued that trial is procrastinating and out of total 28 cited
prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined, whereas, 01 has been
given up till date. Learned counsel has argued that one of the prime
prosecution witness, namely, Abhishek Kumar has been given up by the
Public Prosecutor concerned as having been won over and eye-
witness/FIR-complainant already stands recorded as prosecution witness.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has suffered
incarceration for about 01 year and 10 months. Thus, regular bail is
prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit
of Vipan Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division
City, District Pathankot in Court today. The same be kept on record.
Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned State
counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised
against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does
not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has
further submitted that in case, the petitioner is granted concession of
regular bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process
of justice and also interfere/ intimidate the prosecution evidence/
witnesses. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody
certificate dated 7.4.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 6.6.2024, whereinafter, the
investigation was carried out and the challan has been presented on
4.9.2024. Out of total 28 cited prosecution witnesses, 3 have been
examined and 01 has been given up till date.
6.1 At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of
Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof
reads as under:-
"19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court
concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental
right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency
should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime
committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective
of the nature of the crime.
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a
convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an
accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be
brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency
as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a
speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating
Article 21 of the Constitution."
6.2 As per custody certificate dated 7.4.2026 filed by learned State
counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of
01 year, 9 months and 27 days. As per the said custody certificate, the
petitioner is stated to be involved in 2 more cases/FIR under the
provisions of BNS. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required
to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by
him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to
decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in
question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in
question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR.
Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and
another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of
the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998
(2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M
No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on
29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal)
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,
in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned
CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall
not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of
the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
9.4.2026
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
