[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Attar Singh vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2026

                      213


                                In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                                                              Criminal Misc. No. M-14545 of 2026

                                                                        Date of Decision: 24.04.2026


                      Attar Singh
                                                                                         ... Petitioner(s)

                                                           Versus

                      State of Haryana
                                                                                      ... Respondent(s)

                      CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

                      Present:      Mr. Sartaj Singh Narula, Sr. Advocate with
                                    Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate
                                    for the petitioner(s).

                                    Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana.

                      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.69 dated 13.03.2025,

for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 190,

191(3), 351(2), 351(3), 333, 61(2), 238-C of

, Police Station Munak, District

Karnal.

2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of "Mohit'

hereinafter being referred to as "complainant" only. It was stated by the

complainant that his brother Sachin was adopted by his uncle, namely

'Jagbir' and that he was unmarried. According to complainant, on

12.03.2024 a quarrel had taken place between them and 'Sombeer', 'Ankit'

Criminal Misc. No. M-14545 of 2026

(son of Darshan), 'Sahil', 'Amit', 'Mohit', Sandeep and 'Ankit' son of

Shastri. As per complainant on 12.03.2025 at about 08.00 P.M. all the above

named persons came to their house in a black Scorpio vehicle and resorted to

indiscriminate firing with intention to kill his father, mother and brother. It

was also stated by the complainant that one of the assailants who was armed

with a 'sword' had inflicted injury on the hand of his father and that in the

above-mentioned incident mother of the complainant, namely 'Sumitra'

suffered a bullet injury on her chest and later on passed away. According to

complainant his father and brother, too, had suffered multiple gun-shot

injuries.

3. It is the case of prosecution that in view of above mentioned

information, the formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation

taken up.

4. Custody Certificate as well as status report have been filed by

learned State Counsel. The same be taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner

is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and

that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per learned

counsel for the petitioner the name of the petitioner nowhere finds

mentioned in the FIR, and that the only allegation against the petitioner is

that he had provided information to the assailants with regard to presence of

victims on the spot. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration

for being in custody for a period of more than one year & twenty four days,

Criminal Misc. No. M-14545 of 2026

and that the trial is taking place at a snail's pace as out of 51 prosecution

witnesses, not even one has been examined. It has also been contended by

learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused Kela Devi has already

been afforded the benefit of bail and that role attributed to the petitioner is at

par with the role attributed to 'Kela Devi'.

7. The learned State counsel has controverted the abovementioned

arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case a

prominent role has been attributed to the petitioner, as there are allegations

that the petitioner was the one who collected information from 'Kela Devi'

and passed on the same to the assailants, who executed the assault. As per

learned State Counsel in view of gravity of offence, the petitioner is not

entitled for the benefit of bail.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. A careful perusal of record shows that in the present case,

following are the relevant factors which are necessary to be taken in to

consideration for a decision:-

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year and twenty four days;

ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;

iii) that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was present on the spot at the time of commission of offence;

iv) that the only role attributed to the petitioner is that he had conducted reconnaissance and provided information to the assailants;

v) that except the disclosure statement of the co-accused, there is no other evidence collected by the Investigating

Criminal Misc. No. M-14545 of 2026

Agency against the petitioner;

vi) that the investigation is already complete and nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

vii) that the detention of petitioner is not likely to serve any purpose;

viii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation.

10. With regard to the legal aspect involved in the instant case, it is

relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

'Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another' (2018) 3 Supreme Court

Cases 22, has 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

Criminal Misc. No. M-14545 of 2026

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."

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

India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of

Investigation' (2022) 10 Supreme Court Cases 51, are also relevant in this

case. In the above mentioned 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."

12. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of

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

India 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

Criminal Misc. No. M-14545 of 2026

Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned 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."

13. 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.

14. If the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned 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.

15. 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 above said concession shall

be subject to following conditions:-

a) 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;

b) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond,

Criminal Misc. No. M-14545 of 2026

furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the conclusion of trial; and