[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sagar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 9 March, 2026
CRA-S No.114 of 2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
205 CRA-S No.114 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 09.03.2026
Sagar
......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr.Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Kapil Dev Balyan, Advocate for respondent No.2. .
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 14-A of
the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
hereinafter being referred to as 'SC and ST Act' only. It has been filed to
challenge the order dated 05.09.2025, hereinafter being referred to as
'impugned order' only, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge
Special Court under the SC and ST Act, Sonipat, hereinafter being referred to
as 'trial Court' only, whereby, the regular bail application filed by the appellant
was dismissed in a case arising out of FIR No.139 dated 17.05.2024, for the
offence under Sections 302, 364 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST Act, Police Station Civil Line, District Sonipat.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being at the instance of 'Narender', hereinafter being
referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated by the above named
1 of 7
complainant that on 16.05.2024 his son had left home at about 7.30 P.M to
attend a birthday party, and that at about 1.30 A.M 'Ajay' was found lying
outside the house in a severely injured condition. According to complainant on
inquiries 'Ajay' told him that he was beaten up by 'Akash', 'Lucky', 'Babbal'
and others. It was further stated by the complainant that injured was taken to
hospital, where he passed away.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of above
mentioned complaint formal FIR of this case was lodged and the accused
'Lucky', Virender @ Bablu and Deepak were arrested. According to
prosecution, during the course of investigation they suffered their respective
disclosure statements, wherein they stated that for taking revenge from the
deceased 'Ajay', they had hatched a conspiracy and committed murder of
'Ajay'. According to prosecution at the instance of above named accused the
place of occurrence was got identified.
4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of
crime, and that he has suffered prolonged incarceration. According to learned
counsel for the appellant despite above mentioned factors the benefit of bail
has been denied to appellant. It is the claim of the appellant that the learned
trial Court has committed an error of judgment, and therefore, the impugned
judgment deserves to be set aside.
5. With regard to role of appellant it has been alleged by the
prosecution that co-accused 'Akash' during the course of investigation had
disclosed the name of 'Sagar' and pursuant to above mentioned disclosure
statement the accused 'Sagar' was arrested, who on interrogation confessed his
2 of 7
guilt and got recovered the wooden bat and iron hammer which were used in
the killing of 'Ajay'.
6. Heard.
7. The record has been perused carefully.
8. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant
factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the
present appeal:-
i) that the appellant is already in custody for a period of more than
one year and seven & half months;
ii) that the name of the appellant does not figure in the FIR;
iii) that the name of appellant has come into picture only on the
basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Akash. However,
there is a question mark with regard to admissibility of above
mentioned disclosure statement in evidence, as the same was
recorded when the accused Akash was already in custody.
iv) that it is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to disclosure
statement suffered by the appellant one hammer and one bat
were recovered. However, there is nothing on record to show
that the above mentioned two instruments were used as the
weapons of offence for the commission of offence;
v) that the custody certificate shows that appellant has no criminal
antecedents;
vi) that the sole eye-witness of occurrence introduced by the
prosecution, namely Deepak, has already been examined and he
3 of 7
has not supported the prosecution case with regard to
involvement of appellant in the commission of crime. Thus, it
is apparent that the star witness of the present petition has
already inflicted irreparable damage to the prosecution case;
vii) that the investigation in this case is complete, and therefore,
nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of
appellant;
viii) that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near
future;
ix) that the detention of the appellant in judicial lock up is not
likely to serve any purpose;
x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the appellant is likely to tamper with the evidence, or influence
the witnesses;
xi) that there is nothing on record to show that if appellant is
released on bail, he will not participate/co-operate in the trial.
9. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and
another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that "a
fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of
innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found
guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus
has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is
another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect
4 of 7
of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is
that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a
prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is
an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have
been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal
jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of
bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the
exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of
decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet,
occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an
accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of
a case".
10. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation'
(2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it
has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is
abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the
Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to
think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications
will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up
consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of
a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal
with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".
11. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of
5 of 7
Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of
six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be
said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has
been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and
extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our
justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and
the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in
order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".
12. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and
fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,
fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as
mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in 'Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab
and another' 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
13. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid
factors, it is hereby held that the appellant is entitled for bail, and that an error
of judgment has been committed by the learned trial Court, when it declined
the benefit of bail to the appellant. In the given fact-situation it is held that the
impugned order (ibid) is devoid of merit and deserves to be set aside. Hence,
by accepting the present appeal the impugned order is hereby set aside and it is
hereby ordered that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of bail.
14. In view of above mentioned observations, the appellant is
admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial
6 of 7
Court concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, subject to the following
conditions:-
i) that the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from closing such facts
to the Court or to any other authority;
ii) that the appellant shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish
the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change
in address to the trial Court, till the final disposal of the case;
and
iii) that the appellant shall not leave India without prior permission
of the trial Court.
15. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove
is only for the purpose of deciding the present appeal and the same shall have
no bearing on the merits of the case.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
09.03.2026
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
