[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parvinder Kumar @ Parminder Singh @ ... vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-12603 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
233 CRM-M-12603 of 2026
Date of Decision: 30.04.2026
Parvinder Kumar @ Parminder Singh
@ Happy @ Vapari ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, Punjab.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.129 dated 18.08.2020 registered under Sections
307, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act
(Sections 34, 120-B and 201 IPC added later on), at Police Station Bullowal,
District Hoshiarpur.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner along with
other co-accused, after hatching criminal conspiracy, fired gunshots towards
one Lovedeep Singh (brother of the complainant) and his friend Jaskaran
Singh, with an intention to kill. Hence, the present FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further
submitted that there is a delay of 5 hours in lodging of the FIR, casting
serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that the petitioner was
neither named in the FIR, nor has any concern with the said offence. He
further argued that initially, three persons had been named in the FIR, out of
whom, two were declared innocent later on. He further argued that on
20.08.2020, the first confessional statement of co-accused Sandeep Kumar
@ Ravi Balachauria was recorded, wherein he did not name the petitioner,
but in his second confessional statement recorded on 15.09.2020, he had
named four other persons including the petitioner, alleging therein that the
petitioner was sitting in the vehicle from which the firing was done, which
again creates doubt on the prosecution version. He further argued that
Section 307 of IPC was added by the prosecution only to make the offence
graver. Further similarly situated co-accused, namely, Jasmeet Singh @
Lucky @ Jasbir and Sunil Kumar @ Monu have already been granted the
concession of regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide
orders dated 25.11.2021 and 25.02.2022, respectively. No recovery is to be
effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 04.06.2021.
The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and
charges have also been framed. He further submitted that there are total 47
prosecution witnesses but none has been examined till date and as such, the
trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served
by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves
to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody
certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record and while referring to
the status report already filed in the matter, she has vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the
petitioner is serious in nature. She has further submitted that the petitioner is
involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after
perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody
for the last more than 04 years and 10 months; investigation is complete;
challan stands presented; charges framed; out of 47 witnesses, none has been
examined till date; the complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial; which
is proceeding at snail's pace, and will take a long time to conclude. Thus, no
useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His
continued detention without the prospect of trial being concluded in the near
future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the
bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement
of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution
of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an
exception".
7. The foundational concept of the criminal jurisprudence is to
ensure speedy trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated
that right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Speedy trial would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision
and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation against the
accused and expiring with the final verdict of the last Court.
8. In this regard, reference is being made to the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of right to speedy trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the following decision:- Akhtari Bi
Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) SCC (Crl) 1674, P. Ramachandra Rao Vs.
State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Babu Singh and others Vs. State of
U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579, Takht Singh and others Vs. State of M.P., (2001)
10 SCC 463; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2356 of 2010, Kushal Singh
Vs. State of U.P. (2JJ.) and Fazal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5
SCC 752.
9. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that
petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is
held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while
deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot
be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in
other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal
antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out
the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged
and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away
from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
30.04.2026 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
