[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohammad Rafi Alias Mohammad Rafiq vs State Of Punjab on 23 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.2996 of 2025
Mohammad Rafi @ Mohammad Rafiq ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 19.03.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.03.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 23.03.2026
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. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the
petitioner seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.81 dated
1 of 6
22.04.2022 registered under Sections 302, 307, 324, 325, 323, 148, 149 and
120-B of IPC at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur. The previous
petition as filed by him, had been dismissed as withdrawn.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition
are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement
recorded by the complainant Karamdin alleging that on 21.04.2022, to
perform religious ceremony on account of death of father of the co-villager
Sheru who is member of the same Gujjar community as of the complainant,
some members of his community including himself had gathered. Accused
Gulam Nabi who is his cousin brother with whom they had some dispute
from the last about two years, had also come to attend that ceremony along
with the petitioner and some other persons. At about 8 PM, when the
ceremony had completed, accused Sheru made an exhortation thereby
proclaiming and instigating his other accomplices to catch hold of the
complainant and to teach him a lesson. On hearing so, the petitioner
accompanied by the co-accused opened a murderous assault upon him by
striking blows with sticks and rods. The petitioner struck a blow with a brick
thereby causing injury on the head of his son Talib Hussain. Due to the
impact of the injury, his son had immediately died. His other son Murtza
Ali, Abdul Ali and grandson Reham Ali had also sustained injuries. On
clamour being raised, the assailants had fled away.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. Postmortem examination of dead body of the victim Talib Hussain
2 of 6
was conducted. The petitioner was arrested on 27.04.2022. Other accused
were subsequently arrested. Investigation now stands completed.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. Infact, after performance of the
ceremony, the petitioner was serving meals to the persons present there
including the family members of the complainant when Guggi Bano, wife of
the complainant had thrown a footwear on the face of the petitioner and
Murtaza Ali had also assaulted him. Due to intervention of the relatives, they
were pacified but Abdulla Ali, a member of the group of the complainant
had taken an axe and proclaimed that he would kill the petitioner. The
family of the complainant had then left wheres the petitioner remained in the
house of Barkat Ali. The members of the group of the complainant came to
the house of Barkat Ali at about 9 PM and had opened an assault upon him
thereby causing injuries to his companion Gulam Rasool, Gulam Navi and
himself. Both of his arms were injured. There was no question of his
throwing any brick towards the victim or any other person. He had sustained
grievous injuries on his right arm and thumb of his left hand. A cross case
has been registered. It is a case of version and cross version. He was not the
aggressor. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as only 02
witnesses have been examined so far. No useful purpose would be served by
his further incarceration. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be
allowed and he deserves to be released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
3 of 6
has argued that by forming an unlawful assembly with the co-accused, the
petitioner had assaulted the son of the complainant and other members of his
family including the complainant and had caused injuries to them. The brick
thrown by the petitioner on the head of son of the complainant had resulted
into his homicidal death. There are chances of petitioner's absconding,
intimidating the witnesses or committing similar offences, if extended
benefit of bail. This is a successive petition and there is no drastic change in
the circumstances. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve
to be allowed.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. The petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly
with the co-accused is alleged to have assaulted the members of the
complainant party. The brick thrown by him on the son of the complainant is
stated to have caused his homicidal death due to head injury sustained by
him. It is a case of version and cross version. The petitioner has been linked
to the acts attributed with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. Though the
allegations prima facie show his participation in the occurrence while having
knowledge that the subject offences were likely to be committed in
prosecution of common object and stands accused of a heinous crime,
however, now he has remained in custody for a period of more than 03 years
and 10 months. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as
only 02 out of 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. This
factor, in the opinion of this Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. The
4 of 6
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 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 to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements
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 prolonged 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 entitled to be released on bail.
Since the trial of this case, apparently and evidently is shown to have been
delayed, as such, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful
purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any more.
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
5 of 6
further delay is being caused in the conclusion of the trial and further subject
to his abiding by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with evidence during
trial.
(ii) he will appear before the trial Court on each and
every date fixed, unless is exempted by specific order
of the Court.
(iii) the petitioner 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 disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.
8. In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned
conditions, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to move an application
seeking cancellation of the bail.
9. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no
bearing on the merits of the case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
23.03.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
