[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sharanjit Singh Alias Sharan vs State Of Punjab And Another on 27 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S No.157 of 2026
Sharanjit Singh @ Sharan ... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 22.04.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.04.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 27.04.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Karamjit Singh Randhawa, Advocate and
Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate,
for respondent No.2/complainant.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
authenticity of this order /judgment
1989 (for short 'the SC/ST Act') by the appellant challenging the order
dated 23.10.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Patiala in case arising out of FIR No.169 dated 25.07.2025 registered under
Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short
"BNS") (Section 115(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of
SC/ST Act added later on) at Police Station Patran, District Patiala, whereby
application for grant of regular bail as filed by the appellant had been
dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of
this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a
statement recorded by the complainant Malkit Singh alleging that on
25.07.2025, he along with his family members and one Harpreet Singh who
was friend of his son Davinder Singh were present in his house when
Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakkha whose trucks his son Davinder Singh and
Harpreet Singh used to drive as employees, called them at his shop. Accused
Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakkha accused both of them of having committed
theft of an amount of Rs.65,500/- from his truck and because of that reason,
his son Davinder Singh and his friend Harpreet Singh were extended severe
beatings by Lakhwinder Singh, his nephew and brother. Feeling humiliated,
both of them came to their house and consumed Celphas tablets. On finding
their deteriorating health condition, they were rushed to hospital but died on
the way. By alleging that the accused Lakhwinder Singh, his nephew i.e. the
2026.04.27 14:24 appellant and brother had harassed and extended beatings to the victims
authenticity of this order /judgment
thereby compelling them to commit suicide, the complainant prayed for
taking action in the matter.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. The name of the appellant who is nephew of accused Lakhwinder
Singh @ Lakkha was disclosed in the supplementary statement recorded by
the complainant on 29.07.2025. The appellant was arrested on 23.08.2025.
He suffered disclosure statement admitting his participation in assaulting the
victim and also using caste related remarks to the deceased who belonged to
Scheduled Caste category. Co-accused were also arrested. Investigation now
stands concluded.
4. The prayer made by the appellant for grant of bail had been
declined by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground
that the allegations against him were serious in nature.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the
impugned order dated 23.10.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is
liable to be set aside as while passing the same, the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge ignored the fact that the ingredients for
commission of offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS were not at all
attracted in this case. Even the provisions of Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST Act
are not attracted in this case since the offence under Section 108 of BNS
which is pari materia with offence under Section 306 of IPC is not a
scheduled offence as per the Schedule of the SC/ST Act. The material
2026.04.27 14:24 collected by the investigating agency does not at all prove that the suicide by
authenticity of this order /judgment
the victims had been abetted by the appellant in any manner whatsoever. He
was not even named in the FIR. The trial is likely to take considerable time.
No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody any more. It
is, therefore, argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the
appeal deserves to be accepted and further that the appellant deserves to be
extended benefit of bail.
6. Written response has been filed by the respondent-State.
Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab assisted by learned counsel for
respondent No.2/complainant has vehemently argued that the victims were
harassed by the appellant and the co-accused in the name of their caste and
by making allegations of committing theft of money. They were highly
disturbed due to this fact and took extreme step of committing suicide. The
allegations against the appellant are serious in nature. The trial is going on at
a proper pace and there is nothing to show that there would be any undue
delay in conclusion of the same. The appellant even tried to abscond from
the country and had been apprehended from Airport. There are chances of
his absconding, if extended benefit of bail. The order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference. It is, therefore,
stressed that the appeal does not deserve to be allowed.
7. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
8. The victims are alleged to have died a suicidal death by
consuming Celphas tablets being perturbed by the fact that the present
2026.04.27 14:24 appellant along with the co-accused had extended beatings to him on the
authenticity of this order /judgment
ground that they had committed theft of some money from the truck
belonging to accused Lakhwinder Singh. The victims did not leave any
suicide note. As per the postmortem examination report, no injury was found
on the dead bodies of the victims. In the circumstances peculiar to the case
and on going through the allegations in the FIR, this Court is of the
considered opinion that it is a question of debate as to whether the
provisions of offence under Section 108 of BNS are attracted in this case or
not? Such question has to be decided on thorough assessment and evaluation
of evidence to be produced at trial and not at this stage. Further, so far as
offence under Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST Act is concerned, since the offence
under Section 108 of BNS (pari materia with offence under Section 306 of
IPC) is not an offence scheduled under the SC/ST Act, therefore, prima facie
ingredients of the same are also not attracted. The appellant is not required
for the purpose of further investigation as the same stands concluded. The
trial will take considerable time to conclude as none out of 42 prosecution
witnesses have been examined so far. As such, no fruitful purpose would be
served by detaining the appellant in custody any more. The well settled
proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre trial
incarceration of an accused should not be a replica of post conviction
sentencing. The detention prior to trial should not become punitive.
Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
The appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his
2026.04.27 14:24 furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial
authenticity of this order /judgment
Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.
9. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
27.04.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order /judgment
