[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Khichar vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2026
CRM-M-16399
16399-2026 (O&M) 7 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
221 CRM-M-16399-2026 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 29.04.2026
.2026
SANDEEP KHICHAR .....PETITIONER(S)
(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT(S)
(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P
PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and
Mr. Akash Balyan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
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.162 dated 07.07.2025,
for the commission of offence punishable
punishable under Sections 103, 3(5),111,
309(4), 249, 61(2)
61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 and 27
of Arms Act Police Station City-1
City 1 Abohar, District Fazilka.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the
FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'Himanshu Verma',
hereinafter
reinafter being referred to as 'complainant'
'complainant' only. It was stated by the
above named complainant that on 07.07.2025 at about 10.00 A.M. when he
was going towards his showroom and his father, namely 'San
'Sanjay
jay Kumar
Verma' was parking his car in the parking lot, situated in front of their
CRM-M-16399
16399-2026 (O&M) 7 2
showroom, three boys riding on a motorcycle came there
there, and fired gunshots
with the pistol at his father with the intention to kill him. According to
complainant, the name of one of the assailants was 'Shakti Kumar' and the
remaining two he would identify if produced before him. It was further
stated by the complainant that on account of abovementioned bullet injuries,
his father passed away.
3. It is the case of the prose
prosecution
cution that in view of the
abovementioned statement, the formal FIR of this case was lodged and the
investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of
investigation, it has been found that the assailants involved in the
commission of above-mentioned
abo mentioned offence were 'Shakti Kumar', 'Jaskaran
Singh alias Karan' and
and 'Rajinder Singh alias Billa'.
4. With regard to role attributed to the petitioner, it has been
alleged by the prosecution that the only role attributed to the abovenamed
petitioner is that before the commission of offence, he had provided
accommodation to the co-accused
co accused who were involved in the incident of
shooting. As per story set-out
out by the prosecution, the above
above-mentioned
mentioned
events had taken place before the commission of offence.
5. 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 has orally opposed the present
petition.
6. Heard.
7. The record has been perused carefully.
CRM-M-16399
16399-2026 (O&M) 7 3
8. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are
the relevant factors which are required
required to be taken into consideration for a
decision:--
i. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of
more than nine months
months;
ii. that as per story set-out
out by the prosecution, the petitioner
was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence;
iii. that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he
was part of the conspiracy which might have taken place
before the commission
ommission of crime;
iv. that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner that
he was involved in the commission of crime either
directly or indirectly;
v. that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the
similarly placed co-accused;
accused;
vi. that nothing
g has been left to be recovered from the
possession of petitioner;
vii. that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in
near future;
viii. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock
lock-up
up 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.
9. 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 relevant,
CRM-M-16399
16399-2026 (O&M) 7 4
wherein it has been observed that "aa fundamental pos
postulate
tulate 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
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 pers
person
on 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
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
10. The principles 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
abovementioned case, it has been observed that ""the
the rate of conviction
in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor
CRM-M-16399
16399-2026 (O&M) 7 5
weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a
negative sense. Courts tend to think that
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 adju
adjudication
dication by way of trial.
On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a
case of grave injustice".
injustice
11. 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 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 vvalued.
alued. 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".
12. Too 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
CRM-M-16399
16399-2026 (O&M) 7 6
by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder
Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and
Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
13. 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.
14. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, the present petition is hereby allowed
allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered
to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the
satisfaction
sfaction of learned trial 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 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 shal
shalll 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
29.04.2026
Vinod
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
