[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Janak Raj vs State Of Punjab on 20 April, 2026
CRM-M-19703-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
249 CRM-M-19703-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 20.04.2026
Janak Raj
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Chandanpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
Complainant-Hardev Singh in person.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This petition for bail is the fourth 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.07 dated
15.02.2021, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302,
307, 323, 324, 120-B, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code [charge framed under
Section 120-B, 148, 302 read with Section 149 and 323 of IPC], Police
Station Ghuman, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of
'Hardev Singh', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was
stated by the above-named complainant that on 15.02.2021, when his sons,
namely 'Simrandeep Singh' (now deceased) and 'Harmandeep Singh' were
CRM-M-19703-2026 (O&M)
going home from school at Ghuman, Harmanpreet Singh along with
Germanpreet Singh, Jaswant Lal, Jaswinder Lal, Janak Raj (the petitioner
herein), Mantu, Akash Deep Singh, armed with datars, steel rod, dangs
(wooden stick) and baseball bats and Hans Raj, empty handed, and 2-3
unidentified persons attacked them outside the school gate and inflicted
multiple injuries on the persons of Simrandeep Singh and Harmandeep
Singh. As per prosecution case, Harmanpreet Singh was armed with a datar
at the time of the occurrence and he inflicted a datar blow on the head of
Simrandeep Singh (now deceased). As per prosecution, the injuries suffered
by 'Simrandeep Singh' proved to be fatal.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned
statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of
respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed
with. 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 assisted by complainant in
person has orally opposed the present petition.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present
case, and that he is already in custody for a period of more than four years
and eleven months.
CRM-M-19703-2026 (O&M)
8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
also contended that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, although this is fourth
petition for bail filed by the petitioner, but third petition for bail filed by the
petitioner was not decided on merits. It has also been contended by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the prime role has been attributed to co-accused,
namely 'Harmanpreet Singh' and the injury, which has been proved to be
fatal for deceased, too, has been attributed to abovementioned co-accused
only.
9. The learned State counsel has controverted the abovementioned
arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the allegations against the
petitioner are quite specific qua the fact that he was instrumental in causing
death of the victim, and therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of bail.
10. The record has been perused carefully.
11. 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 four years and eleven months;
ii) that although this is fourth petition for bail, however the third
petition for bail filed by the petitioner was not decided on merit.
Rather, it was dismissed as withdrawn,
iii) that the injury, which has been proved to be fatal for deceased,
has been attributed to co-accused 'Harmanpreet Singh';
CRM-M-19703-2026 (O&M)
iv) that the role attributed to the petitioner is lighter in comparison
to the role attributed to co-accused, who has already been
granted the benefit of bail;
v) that co-accused of the petitioner, namely 'Harmanpreet Singh'
and 'Jaswinder Singh', have already been accorded the benefit
of bail by this Court;
vi) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession
of petitioner;
vii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;
viii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not
likely to serve any purpose;
ix) 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
x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.
12. 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
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
CRM-M-19703-2026 (O&M)
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".
13. 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.
On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a
case of grave injustice".
CRM-M-19703-2026 (O&M)
14. 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".
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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
CRM-M-19703-2026 (O&M)
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
20.04.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
