[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nitish @ Nitish Kumar Alias Gully vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 2026
CRM-M-8335-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
216 CRM-M-8335-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 09.04.2026
Nitish @Nitish Kumar @Gulli
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Daljeet Singhh Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. B.N.S. Marok, Advocate and
Ms. Geeta Khanna, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral)
This petition is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita', 2023. It has
been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.20 dated 11.02.2023,
for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 148, 149
[challaned under Sections 302, 364, 323, 379-B, 201 and 34] of
, Police Station Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, District
Jalandhar .
2. The above-mentioned FIR came into being in response to a
complaint of Captain Mohan Singh, hereinafter being referred to as
'complainant' only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that his
son, Swatantarjit Singh alias Satta, aged about 35 years, was working in
CRM-M-8335-2026 (O&M)
Sabzi Mandi, Jalandhar, and his duty was to issue slips, at the entry gate, for
the carts entering the compound. According to complainant, Nitish Kumar
Gulli (the petitioner herein) used to visit the market, and a dispute had arisen
between Nitish Kumar Gulli and his son. As per complainant, on that day, he
came to know that his son had been killed. In his above-mentioned
complaint, the complainant further alleged that he was sure that his son
Swatantarjit Singh alias Satta was killed by Nitish Kumar Gulli along with
his partner Rahul Sabharwal and two/three other persons.
3. Heard.
4. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner
is already in custody for last more than three years, one and a half month. It
has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the other
co-accused, namely Himanshu Rajdev and Rahul, have already been
accorded the benefit of bail. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the
eye-witness Mukesh Kumar has not supported the prosecution case in his
deposition and that against him, the father of the deceased has moved an
application under Section 319 CrPC, praying for implicating him as an
accused in this case.
5. In addition to above, it has also been contended on behalf of the
petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered prolonged incarceration,
and that the trial is taking place at a snail's pace. According to learned
counsel for the petitioner, as many as 32 persons have been arrayed as
witnesses in the list, by the prosecution, and that recording of statements of
such a large number of witnesses is likely to consume a lot of time.
CRM-M-8335-2026 (O&M)
6. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the
petitioner. The same be taken on record.
7. The learned State Counsel has argued that in the present case,
the complainant himself had disclosed that his son was killed by Nitish
Kumar Gulli (the petitioner herein), Rahul Sabharwal and two or three other
persons. It has been further argued by learned State Counsel that during the
course of investigation, the role of the petitioner has been specifically
defined and it has been found that at the time of commission of offence, he
was armed with an iron rod and inflicted injuries on the arms & legs of the
deceased.
8. Heard.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are
the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration, for the
decision in the present petition: -
i) that as per custody certificate, the petitioner has already
suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a
period of more than three years, one and a half month;
ii) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the co-
accused, namely Himanshu Rajdev and Rahul Sabharwal;
iii) that the trial is not likely to be completed in near future as thirty
two prosecution witnesses have been cited in the list,, and only
three have been examined so far;
iv) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession
of petitioner;
v) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lock-up is not
likely to serve any purpose;
CRM-M-8335-2026 (O&M)
vi) 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
vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.
11. 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
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
CRM-M-8335-2026 (O&M)
bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the
circumstances of a case".
12. 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', ( 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
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".
13. 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
CRM-M-8335-2026 (O&M)
many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed
efficiently".
14. Therefore, 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 his furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to
the satisfaction of learned trial Court, subject to the 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
, till the final decision of the trial;
and
CRM-M-8335-2026 (O&M)
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission
of the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
09.04.2026
Vinod
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
