[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gobind Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 January, 2026

                                                                                 1

CRM-
CRM-M-35581-
      35581-2025




218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                               CRM-
                               CRM-M-35581-
                                     35581-2025

Gobind Singh
                                                                       Petitioner
                                                                     ....Petitioner
                                        versus
State of Punjab
                                                                   ....Respondent

Date of decision: January 13,
                          13, 2026
                              2026
Date of Uploading: January 13,
                            13, 2026

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:     Mr. Khushkaran K. Goyal, Advocate and
             Mr. Sanpreet S. Kalra, Advocate and
             Mr. Amanjot S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

             Mr. Soransh Sabharwal,, Advocate for the complainant.

                                        *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to

the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.287 No. dated 23.10.2024, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 109, 127(1), 303(2), 324(4), 118(1) & 3(5)

of the BNS, 2023, 2023 registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that

complainant,, namely, Harjot Singh, son of Balwinder Singh Singh,, stated that he is a

resident of Janta Nagar, Bhagwan Chowk, near Military Camp, Ludhiana Ludhiana,, and

is working as an Accountant.. He further stated that his sister is married and that

he intended to go abroad, specifically to Canada Canada. In this regard, he came into

contact with Jagjit Singh alias Jassi, Jassi son of Bagga Singh Singh, resident of Mehatpur,

1 of 7

CRM-

CRM-M-35581- 35581-2025

District Jalandhar, and his brother Gobind Singh (petitioner herein). Both

accused represented that they were engaged in sending persons abroad and

induced the complainant with the assurance that they would facilitate his

migration to Canada. They demanded a sum of ₹23,00,000/- for the said

purpose. Believing their representations, the complainant paid the demanded

amount to the accused. However, despite receiving the money, the accused

neither sent the complainant abroad nor refunded the amount and continued to

delay the matter on one pretext or another.

On 21.10.2024, the complainant, along with his friend Karan,

went to Police Station Nakodar to lodge a complaint against the accused. After

submitting the complaint, while returning in their Baleno car bearing

registration No.PB09-1P-8363, the accused Jagjit Singh and Gobind Singh

(petitioner herein), accompanied by two unknown persons, followed them in a

Fortuner car. At about 5:00 PM, near the main highway under the bridge at

Phillaur, the accused wrongfully restrained them by parking their Fortuner in

front of the complainant's vehicle. Upon alighting from the vehicle, the

accused immediately snatched the car keys of the complainant.

Thereafter, Gobind Singh (petitioner herein), who was armed with

a sword, attacked the complainant with the intention to kill him. The blow

struck the right side of his chest. Jagjit Singh also inflicted a second sword

blow, which hit the complainant on his left bicep. A third blow was inflicted by

one of the unknown accused with a khanda, which struck the complainant

below the knee. Subsequently, the petitioner again inflicted a kirpan blow on

the complainant, which hit his right wrist, while Jagjit Singh attacked the

complainant's friend Karan with a kirpan, causing an injury near the left ear on

the neck. Thereafter, the petitioner gave another sword blow, which struck

Karan on the right side of his chest. Both the complainant and his friend started

2 of 7

CRM-

CRM-M-35581- 35581-2025

bleeding profusely. Despite this, the accused persons continued the assault by

throwing bricks and stones, causing damage to the vehicle and breaking its

window panes. The accused also snatched a handbag containing ₹75,000/- in

cash and a mobile phone iPhone 15 Pro Max, and deliberately smashed another

Samsung mobile phone by throwing it on the ground.

A passerby informed the police by calling 112, following which

the injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Phillaur, and later referred to DMC,

Ludhiana, where they remained under medical treatment. The complainant

alleged that Jagjit Singh, Gobind Singh (petitioner herein), and their two

unknown accomplices, acting in furtherance of their common intention,

inflicted the injuries with a clear intention to commit murder.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is

in custody since 16.01.2025. Learned counsel has further iterated that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel

has iterated that one of the injured, namely, Harjot Singh is a habitual offender

and a complaint was made by the brother of the present petitioner against said

Harjot Singh in respect of a cyber fraud and it is on this account that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel

has further argued that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 01

years. Learned counsel has argued that prosecution witnesses; especially,

injured-Harjot Singh and injured-Karan are not repeatedly turning up to have

their testimony recorded, which factum is clearly discernible from the zimni

orders dated 01.08.2025, 04.09.2025, 15.10.2025, 28.11.2025 and 02.01.2026

passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel has, thus, argued that the trial is

procrastinated one and folly thereof is not attributable to the petitioner. Thus,

regular bail is prayed for.

3 of 7

CRM-

CRM-M-35581- 35581-2025

4. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody

certificate dated 12.01.2026 and status report by way of an affidavit dated

16.12.2025, in the Court today, which are taken on record. Raising submissions

in tandem with the said status report, learned State counsel as also learned

counsel for the complainant have opposed the present petition by arguing that

there are direct/ serious allegations against the petitioner. Learned counsel for

the complainant has iterated that injured witnesses are yet to be examined and,

in case, the petitioner is released on regular bail, there are all the chances that

he may influence/ intimidate the said witnesses. Thus, the petitioner does not

deserve the concession of the regular bail.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through

the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 16.01.2025 and is in continuous

custody since then. Upon culmination of investigation, the challan has been

presented on 15.04.2025. Total 33 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out

of which, none has been examined till date. A perusal of the zimni orders dated

01.08.2025, 04.09.2025, 15.10.2025, 28.11.2025 and 02.01.2026 passed by the

trial Court does seem to reflect that the petitioner cannot be saddled with the

said delay in recording testimony of prosecution witnesses.

6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of

Maharashtra and anothers, 22024(3) 024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus:

"18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

4 of 7

CRM-

CRM-M-35581- 35581-2025

19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.

21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution."

The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues,

which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not

deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest

it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to

indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice

or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.2. As per custody certificate dated 12.01.2026 filed by learned State

counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 11

months and 21 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is

stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground

sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in

the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the

FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR.

Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another,

2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble

Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal)

477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh

5 of 7

CRM-

CRM-M-35581- 35581-2025

Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of

Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is

not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition

to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the

petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.