[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Honey Alias Kakera vs State Of Punjab on 5 February, 2026
CRM-M-3461 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
228 CRM-M-3461 of 2025
Date of Decision: 05.02.2026
Honey @ Kakera ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amritpal Singh, DAG, 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.183 dated 16.09.2023 registered under Sections
302 and 120-B of the IPC, at Police Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda.
2. Brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that the
petitioner in connivance with other accused murdered Akash (son of the
complainant), due to some altercation between them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the petitioner
has been wrongly named in the FIR. He further argued that the investigation
done by the police is tainted and even the test identification parade was not
conducted by the police. He argued that even if the contents of the FIR are
1 of 4
taken to be true, even then no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner.
He further argued that the petitioner was empty handed at the time of
commission of offence. Further, co-accused Maneet @ money has already
been granted the concession of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, vide order dated 26.09.2024. The petitioner is in custody since
21.12.2023. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands
presented and charges have also been framed. He further submits that there
are total 17 prosecution witnesses and out of them, only 02 have 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 already filed the
status report in the matter and while referring to the same, he has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the
offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and he has actively
participated in the crime. He further argued that the petitioner was identified
by the complainant before the trial Court. He 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 02 years and 01 month; investigation is complete;
challan stands presented; charges have been framed; out of 17 witnesses,
only 02 have been examined till date; the complicity of the petitioner is a
matter of trial, the trial is proceeding at snail's pace and the same will take a
2 of 4
long time to conclude. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by
detaining him in further custody. His continued detention without the
prospect of the 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 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 her 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
3 of 4
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 his 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)
05.02.2026 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
