Harbhajan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026

           CRM-M-4208-202
                      2026 (O&M)                                                       -1-

           216

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH
                                                  -.-
                                                      CRM
                                                      CRM-M-4208-2026 (O&M)
                                                      Date of Decision : 23.04.2026


           Harbhajan Singh                                                    ....Petitioner

                                                        VERSUS

           State of Punjab                                                    ....Respondent


           CORAM : HON'BLE MR.
                           M JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

           Present:            Mr. Harsh Chopra,
                                         Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

                               Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.
                                                         -.-

           Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. 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. No.24 dated 24.02.2004,, for the

commission of offence punishable punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 148/149 of Indian

Penal Code, Police Station Morinda, District Ropar, Punjab.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Z Zora

Singh,, hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated by the

above-named named complainant that on 24.02.2004 at about 7:00 PM his son, namely

'Paramjit Paramjit Singh', Singh' had gone to meet Avatar Singh (accused in this case) at his

Village Dhoomcherri and did did not return thereafter. As per complainant, when he

visited the house of Avtar Singh, Singh, he found the motor motor-cycle cycle of Paramjit Singh

parked outside the house, and that Paramjit Singh was lying on the floor in a pool

of blood, with his hands and feet tied with a cloth inside the house of Avtar Singh.

                                                                                         Singh




            CRM-M-4208-202
                      2026 (O&M)                                                    -2-

The complainant further stated that Amar Singh armed with datar,, Balbir Singh

with a sword, Jaspinder J Singh with stick and Harbhajan Singh ((the petitioner-

petitioner

herein) with stick and hockey stick were inflicting injuri injuries es on the person of

Paramjit Singh and that on account of the injuries suffered in the above-said said

incident, Paramjit Singh passed away.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above above-mentioned mentioned

statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

According to the prosecution during the course of investigation, the petitioner was

found to be innocent and therefore, therefore, in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the

petitioner was not prosecuted.

4. It is relevant to mention here that the trial commenced against the

other accused and during the course of trial an application under Section 319

Cr.P.C was filed.

filed On consideration of above-mentioned mentioned application, the learned

trial Court summoned the present petitioner as one the accused in the present case.

5. Heard.

6. The he record has been perused carefully.

7. 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 decision:: -

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than 07 months and 13 days;

days

ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;

iii) that the petitioner petitioner was declared innocent by the Investigating agency and therefore, therefore his detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose;

purpose

iv) that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be rec recovered overed from the possession of petitioner;

CRM-M-4208-202 2026 (O&M) -3-

v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of 22 prosecution witnesses only two have been examined examined, so far;

vi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may 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.

8. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of "Dataram "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 "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 (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 ou ourr 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".
                                     case



            CRM-M-4208-202
                      2026 (O&M)                                                -4-

           9.                  The principles laid
laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India

in the case of 'Satender 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and

Another', (2022) 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 rrarity, arity, 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 ultimat ultimatee acquittal with continued

custody would be a case of grave injustice".

injustice

10. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has

observed that "if if an accused is to get a final 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' Hon'ble 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".

efficiently

11. 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

CRM-M-4208-202 2026 (O&M) -5-

constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon'ble Apex

court in "Balwinder Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another", 2024 SCC On Online line

SC 4354.

12. 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.

13. 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.

Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to

following conditions:-

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 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 decisio decision of the trial; and

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.
           April 23, 2026                            (SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
           tripti                                           JUDGE
                   Whether speaking/non-speaking
                           speaking/non speaking : Speaking
                   Whether reportable             : Yes/No


		            