[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bobby Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M No.16843 of 2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
231 CRM-M No.16843 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 27.04.2026
Bobby Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section
483 of the 'Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023'. This petition pertains
to a case arising out of FIR No.34 dated 05.02.2026 for the commission of
offence punishable under Sections 310(4), 310(5) and 317(2) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar
Fazilka.
2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'ASI
Radhey Sham' who had reported that on 05.02.2026, when he was leading a
team of police officials, he received a tip-off from a reliable source that
'Bobby Singh' (the petitioner herein), 'Raj Kumar @Rajan', 'Karan Singh',
'Rajan Singh' and 'Jaswinder Singh @Jassi' had formed a gang, and that they
had gathered near the 'Sem nala bridge' on FF Road. As per information they
were armed with weapons and were planning to commit dacoity. According to
CRM-M No.16843 of 2026 (O&M) 2
abovementioned report in view of abovementioned information, the raid was
conducted and all the above named five persons were apprehended.
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. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr.
I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State.
Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. He 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.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of two months and
sixteen days. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that a false case has been lodged against the petitioner without any
evidence, and that in the instant case there is not even an allegation qua the fact
that anybody had overheard the petitioner, when he was planning the
commission of offence like dacoity.
8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned
arguments.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant
factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in
CRM-M No.16843 of 2026 (O&M) 3
the present petition:-
i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of two
months and sixteen days;
ii) that in the instant case the allegations against the petitioner is
that he was planning to commit dacoity, but there is no
allegation qua the fact that such planning was overheard by the
investigating officer or anybody else. Thus, there is a serious
question mark with regard to claim of the prosecution that the
petitioner was planning a dacoity.
iii) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession
of petitioner;
iv) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to
serve any purpose;
v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;
vi) 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
vii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail, the
petitioner will not participate/cooperate in 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) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that
"a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of
CRM-M No.16843 of 2026 (O&M) 4
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 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 v. Central Bureau of Investigation'
(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
CRM-M No.16843 of 2026 (O&M) 5
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 many tools for the Judges to use in
order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".
14. 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 an undertrial prisoner, as
mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in 'Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab
and another' 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
15. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid
factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail,
and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
CRM-M No.16843 of 2026 (O&M) 6
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 furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit 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 from disclosing 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 trial Court.
17. It is, however, made clear that any observation made
hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the
same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
27.04.2026
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
