[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Mahajan vs State Of Punjab on 18 April, 2026
CRM-M-11682-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
208 CRM-M-11682-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.04.2026
Rakesh Mahajan
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Viren Sibal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
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.191 dated 11.10.2025,
for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103, 109, 190,
191(3), 61(2), 249 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and
27 of Arms Act, Police Station City Batala, Police District Batala, District
Gurdaspur.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of
'Amandeep Kumar', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It
was stated by the complainant that on 10.10.2025 at about 08:30 pm, he had
visited the showroom of his brother-in-law, namely 'Sudhir Chanda',
situated near Chowk Jassa Singh Ramgarhia, Batala. According to
CRM-M-11682-2026 (O&M)
complainant, in the abovementioned showroom 'Chander Chanda', the
younger brother of his brother-in-law, along with 'Sarabjit Singh @Kaka',
'Kanav Mahajan' and employees of showroom, namely 'Sanjeev Seth',
'Amritpal Singh' etc., were present.
3. It was further alleged by the complainant that after ten minutes,
'Kanav Mahajan' and 'Sarabjit Singh @Kaka' went outside the showroom,
where 2-3 young persons were already present. As per complainant, in the
meanwhile, four young persons riding on motorcycles came there.
According to complainant, two of them picked-up revolvers/pistols from
their waistbands and fired indiscriminately towards 'Kanav Mahajan' and
'Sarabjit Singh @Kaka'. It was further alleged by the complainant that on
hearing the noise of gun-shots, 'Chander Chanda' and 'Amritpal Singh'
rushed outside the showroom, but two young men arrived on foot, joined the
former assailants and fired gunshots. According to complainant, in the
abovementioned incident, all of them suffered injuries, but the injuries
suffered by 'Sarabjit Singh @Kaka' and 'Kanav Mahajan' proved to be
fatal.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned
information, formal FIR in this case was lodged and the investigation taken
up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation 'Rakesh
Mahajan' (the petitioner herein) and his wife 'Rajni Mahajan' were arrested
on the basis of secret information. As per prosecution, on interrogation the
petitioner suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he disclosed that his co-
accused 'Jagdeep Singh @Jaggu Bhagwanpuria', 'Mandeep Singh
CRM-M-11682-2026 (O&M)
@Manna', 'Amandeep Singh', 'Harry Chatha' and 'Amit Mahajan' are
involved in illegal activities, such as extortion, drug trafficking and
kidnapping in the State of Punjab and other States, and that they have
formed a network of criminals.
5. According to prosecution, the petitioner further disclosed that
the illegal money, collected through the abovementioned illegal activities,
used to be deposited within him and his wife 'Rajni Mahajan', and the said
money was transferred through different channels to their son 'Keshav
Shivala', who further supplied the money to the shooters for carrying out
criminal acts.
6. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the
petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by
the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present
petition.
7. Heard.
8. It has been contented on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of
crime, and that he is in custody for a period of more than six months. As per
learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no allegation against the petitioner
that he was present on the spot at the time of commission of offence, or that
he was actively involved in any manner, whatsoever, in the commission of
offence.
CRM-M-11682-2026 (O&M)
9. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
also contended that benefit of bail has already been accorded to the similarly
placed co-accused.
10. The learned State Counsel has controverted the
abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the
petitioner has been nominated in the present case on the basis of secret and
credible information to the effect that he was actively associated with the
criminal network. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that the
petitioner was actively safeguarding and managing extortion money on
behalf of the gang members, and used to provide financial assistance to
them. According to learned State Counsel, the petitioner's act of harbouring
the shooter in a case involving a gruesome double murder and multiple
firearm injuries, establishes his active complicity, disentitling him from the
concession of bail.
11. The record has been perused carefully.
12. 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: -
i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more
than six months;
ii) that petitioner has no criminal antecedents;
iii) that the only allegation against the petitioner is about
harbouring of main accused, but to support the abovementioned
allegations, except his disclosure statement, no other evidence
has been collected by the Investigating Officer. With regard to
CRM-M-11682-2026 (O&M)
disclosure statement, there is a question mark about its
credibility & admissibility in evidence, as the same was
recorded when the maker of it was in police custody. Since
pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement no recovery
of incriminating material has taken place, prima facie the
abovementioned statement appears to be hit by Section-23 of
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam;
iv) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the co-
accused;
v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;
vi) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and
therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the
possession of petitioner;
vii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not
likely to serve any purpose;
viii) 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
ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.
13. 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 also
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
CRM-M-11682-2026 (O&M)
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
bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the
circumstances of a case".
14. 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', (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 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.
CRM-M-11682-2026 (O&M)
On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a
case of grave injustice".
15. 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
many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed
efficiently".
16. 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.
17. 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.
CRM-M-11682-2026 (O&M)
18. 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. However the abovementioned concession
shall be subject to 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 shall notify the change
in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial;
and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission
of the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
18.04.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
