[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sandeep Singh Alias Bau vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026

           CRM-M-17460--2026 (O&M)                                   1




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                           CHANDIGARH


                                                                         CRM-M-17460-2026 (O&M)
           SANDEEP SINGH @ BAU
                                                                                           ...
                                                                                            .. Petitioner

                                                           Versus

           STATE OF PUNJAB

                                                                                          ...Respondent
           1                    The date when the judgment is reserved             29.04.2026
           2                    The date when the judgment is pronounced           30.04.2026
           3                    The date when the judgment is uploaded on the      30.04.2026
                                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:                 Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate and
                                    Mr. Penny Sachdeva, Advocate
                                                            cate for the petitioner

                                    Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab

                                    ****

           MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant one is the third petition filed by the petitioner under

Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS")

for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. No.246 246 dated 14.09.2020

registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Tarn Taran,

District Tarn Taran. The first petition bearing CRM CRM-M-15463-2023 2023 was

dismissed as withdrawn on 04.04.2024 and the second petition bearing CRM CRM-M--

integrity of this order/judgment.

53594-2024 was dismissed by this Court on 20.03.2025 by making the

following observations :-

:

The petitioners along with the co-accused co accused Hari Singh are alleged to

have committed the murder of the victim on the fateful night. The

incident had been captured in the mobil mobilee phone of Amrit Pal Singh,

who had turned approver and handed over the said video to the

police. As per the post-mortem post mortem report, the victim was killed in a

brutal manner since several injuries had been inflicted on his dead

body. The mere fact that the petitioners petitioners have undergone certain

period of incarceration by itself would not entitle them to be

enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be

completed in near future is sufficient for that purpose. Keeping in

view of the nature of the accusations accusations as levelled against him, the

quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the

attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning

to make any comment on the merits thereof, I am of the considered

opinion that the petition petition does not deserve to be allowed. Hence, the

same is dismissed.

dismissed

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been

falsely implicated in this case. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence.

There is no eye--witness to the occurrencee and there has been no evidence to

connect him with the commission of subject offences. PW7 Amritpal Singh

who had allegedly prepared a video of the occurrence and had handed over the

integrity of this order/judgment.

compact disk of the same, has resiled from his previous version. From his

sworn deposition, it is clear that the video recording did not show the petitioner

or any other accused as the assailant of the victim. The similarly situated co--

accused Dhalwinder Singh @ Ramma has been extended benefit of bail. On

parity, he too deserves eserves to be extended the same benefit. He is in custody since

20.09.2020. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. Each day spent by

him in custody has furnished a new ground to him to seek concession of bail. It

is, therefore, argued that he deserves deserves to be extended benefit of bail and the

petition deserves to be allowed.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status

report has argued that the previous petition filed by the petitioner had been

dismissed by passing a detailed detailed order. There is no substantial change in the

circumstances and hence this petition is not maintainable maintainable.. The allegations

against the petitioner are serious in nature. Trial is going at a proper pace. The

complainant has supported the prosecution versi version.

on. It is, therefore, argued that

the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

4. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties at considerable length.

5. A perusal of the prosecution case would reveal that the same

substantially rests upon the alleged extra-judicial extra judicial confession made by co co--

accused Hari Singh before Sham Singh Rana and the statement of Amrit Pal

Singh, who was projected as an approver.

approver. However, both these material

integrity of this order/judgment.

witnesses, while appearing before the learned trial Co Court as PW-5 and PW-7

respectively, have not supported the prosecution prosecution version and have resiled from

their earlier statements. Sham Singh Rana has has categorically denied that any

extra-judicial judicial confession was made before him, him, whereas Amrit Pal Singh has

specifically denied that the petitioner or the co co-accused accused were assaulting the

deceased at the time of recording of the alleged vvideo. Therefore, the

prosecution evidence against the petitioner stands considerably weakened.

Though as per the prosecution prosecution case the petitioner alongwith the co co-accused accused Hari

Singh had tied the victim with a jamun tree and had struck blows upon his

person with a datar and the incident was captured in mobile phone of Amritpal

Singh, however, the said Amritpal Singh has tturned urned approver and has not

supported the prosecution version at all. Even complainant Joginder Singh has

not deposed about the involvement of the petitioner in the crime, though he has

identified him in his sworn deposition. The petitioner is in custody since

20.09.2020 and only 10 prosecution witnesses witnesses have been examined so far.

Meaning eaning thereby that the chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are

bleak. This factor in the opinion of this Court Court,, is a ground to move for bail

afresh. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an

accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and the bail

application can be considered on its own merits even if it is filed repeatedly. It

has also been held that every day spent spen in custody can provide a new cause of

action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. This principle is

a part of the broader approach emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming

integrity of this order/judgment.

to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements uirements of the criminal justice

system. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since

the settled principle of law is that detention prior to trial should not become

punitive. It is well settled proposition of law that prolonge prolonged d incarceration

generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution and in such cases, when there is delay in

conclusion of trial without there being any fault on the part of the accused, he

becomes es entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, keeping in view the period of

custody already undergone by the petitioner, the slow pace of trial and the nature

of evidence presently available on record, this Court is of the considered view

that continued detention detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted

to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the

satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it

will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the

petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case and if it appears that it

is on account of any act and conduct of the petitioner that further delay is being

caused in the conclusion of the trial and further subject to his abiding by the

following conditions:-

conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainte acquainted d with the

facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any

manner whatsoever.

integrity of this order/judgment.

(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any

circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before eeach ach and every date of

hearing.

(iv) The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as

present address before the learned trial Court at the time of

furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without

informing the trial Court.

(v) The petitioner petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN

Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the

learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case,