[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh @ Shinda vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-15110-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221 CRM-M-15110-2026
Date of decision: 30th April, 2026
Surinder Singh @ Shinda
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-
The instant one is the second petition filed under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the
petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 103 dated
03.05.2022 registered under Sections 302, 307, 148 and 149 of IPC (Sections
323, 324, 326 and 450 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Jandiala,
District Amritsar. His previous petition bearing CRM-M No. 6793 of 2025
had been dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2025.
2. The previous petition bearing CRM-M No. 6793 of 2025 had
been dismissed by this Court by making the following observations:-
"6. The petitioner by forming unlawful assembly with the co-
accused in prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged to have
voluntarily caused injuries to the complainant, her husband as well as
her son. Her son had died as a result of the injuries so sustained
whereas her husband sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was
not only named in the FIR but there are specific allegations against him
that he along with the co-accused had kept on inflicting injuries on the
person of the victim continuously at the time of occurrence. As per the
post mortem examination report, as many as six injuries were sustained
by the victim which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
nature and were ante mortem in nature. The complainant and her
husband have also sustained simple as well as grievous injuries in the
same incident. The allegations prima facie show complicity of the
petitioner in the subject offences as he appears to be vicariously liable
for the homicidal death of the victim as well as for causing injuries to
the complainant and her husband. Keeping in view the serious nature
of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the quantum of
sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and
circumstances but without meaning to make any comment on the merits
of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not
deserve to be extended benefit of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the
petition is dismissed."
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after
dismissal of his previous petition, a period of more than 01 year and 01 month
has lapsed. However, there is not much progress in the trial as only 04 out of
29 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner has been
in custody for a period of over 03 years and 11 months. The chances of
conclusion of trial in near future as still bleak. No useful purpose would be
served by detaining him in custody anymore. His prolonged incarceration is
militating against the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India of
personal liberty. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a fresh
ground to him to seek concession of bail afresh. It is, therefore, argued that
the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status
report has argued that the petition is not maintainable being a successive
petition. There is no substantial change in the circumstances. The allegations
against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is, therefore, argued that the
petition does not deserve to be allowed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties at considerable length.
6. The petitioner by being part of an unlawful assembly is alleged
to have voluntarily caused injuries to the complainant, her husband as well as
her son. Her son has succumbed to the injuries. The complainant and other
material witnesses have been examined and have supported the prosecution
version. The petitioner has undoubtedly been in prolonged incarceration,
however, only on that account benefit of bail cannot be extended to him. While
length of incarceration is a factor that weighs with the Court in considering
bail, it cannot overshadow the seriousness of the accusation of murder under
Section 302 IPC. It is well-settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a
discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and
circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set
out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature
of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail a conviction
and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart,
reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the
complainant is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should always be
considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered
in the matter of grant of bail.
7. In light of the foregoing legal principles, having regard to the
applicant's role in the incident and the reasonable apprehension of his
absconding or tampering with evidence, this Court finds no compelling
ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
8. It is clarified that any observation made in this order is only for
deciding this petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and also
not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits.
9. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application,
if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
30th April, 2026
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
