Major Singh Alias Majer Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another

1
CRA-S-2553-2026 (O&M) P a g e |



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH





(111) CRA-S-2553-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.11.2026
Date of uploading: 13.11.2026


Major Singh @ Majer Singh and another
…Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab and another

…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present :- Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate &
Ms. Jaswinder Kaur, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Derabassi, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

*

SUMEET GOEL , J .(Oral)
CRM-33693-2026
In view of the averments made in the application as also
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, the application is
allowed and delay of 127 days in filing the accompanying appeal is
condoned.
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.13 16:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.

2
CRA-S-2553-2026 (O&M) P a g e |


nd
1. Present 2 appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(for short 'SC/ST Act') for grant of regular bail to the appellants, in case
bearing FIR No.361 dated 17.09.2023, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short 'IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, at Police Station
Sohana, District Mohali.
2. The FIR in question pertains to murder of one Satvir Singh.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the
appellants are in custody since 17.09.2023. Learned counsel further
submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated into the FIR in
question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the case in hand is not
one based on eye witness account, but based on circumstantial evidence.
Learned counsel has argued that prosecution version primarily hinges on
the statements of Dharminder Singh and Ajaib Singh, who are stated to
have witnessed the deceased being taken in the car in question on
12.09.2023, but they did not report the same to the police until 17.09.2023.
Learned counsel has further iterated that the entire prosecution case thus
become doubtful. Learned counsel has argued that out of total cited 28
prosecution witnesses only 08 have been examined till date. Learned
counsel has further argued that the appellants have suffered incarceration
for a period of more than 3 years and have clean antecedents. Thus, regular
bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present appeal by
arguing that the allegations raised against the appellants are serious in
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.13 16:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.

3
CRA-S-2553-2026 (O&M) P a g e |


nature and thus the appellants do not deserve the concession of the regular
bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody
certificates dated 04/12.11.2026, in the Court today, which are taken on
record.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed
the grant of regular bail to the appellants by arguing that there are
direct/serious allegations against the appellants. He has further urged that
the appellant-Major Singh had the motive to commit the crime in question
and thus, he is not at parity with other co-accused, who have been afforded
the concession of regular bail. Learned counsel has further argued that in
case, the appellants are released on bail, there is all the likelihood that they
may abscond from the process of justice as also intimate the remaining
prosecution witnesses as also the FIR-complainant. Thus, dismissal of the
appeal in hand is entreated for.
6. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone
through the available records of the case.
7. The appellants were arrested on 17.09.2023 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 14.12.2023.
Total 28 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is the conceded
position before this Court only 08 have been examined till date. It is thus,
indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long time. 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, 2024(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
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.13 16:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.

4
CRA-S-2553-2026 (O&M) P a g e |


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.

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 appellant 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. ”

7.1. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand;
especially the factum of the case in hand hinging upon circumstantial
evidence and not being based on an eye-witness account, the appellants
having already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 3 years and
have clean antecedents, the FIR-complainant, namely, Surinder Singh,
having been examined as a prosecution witness, as also PW-Dharminder
Singh and PW-Ajaib Singh having been examined as prosecution witnesses
& the trial not being likely to culminate in the near future; this Court is
inclined to afford the concession of regular bail to the appellants.
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
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.13 16:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.

5
CRA-S-2553-2026 (O&M) P a g e |


has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the appellants
absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution
evidence.
7.2 As per custody certificates filed today by learned State
counsel, appellant No.1 has already suffered incarceration for a period of 3
years, 1 month & 17 days whereas appellant No.2 has suffered
incarceration for a period of 3 years, 1 month and 9 days and appellants not
shown to be involved in other FIRs/cases.
nd
7.3. Indubitably, the present appeal is the 2 attempt on behalf of
the appellants for securing regular bail. The first one bearing no.
CRA-S-696-2026 was dismissed as not withdrawn on 27.04.2026
(Annexure P-1). However, keeping in view the entirety of facts and
circumstances of the case in hand, especially keeping in view the extended
custody and glacial pace of trial, this Court is inclined to favourably
consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can
be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as
Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another ; relevant whereof reads
as under:
“ 10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles
emerge:

I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable
in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the
ground of maintainability thereof.

II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable
whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not
pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was
dismissed on merits.
III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed,
the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to
show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere
superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric
expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.13 16:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.

6
CRA-S-2553-2026 (O&M) P a g e |


abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial,
effective and consequential change in circumstances.
IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what
would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has
its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing
but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial
wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such
second/successive regular bail petition(s).
V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular
bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be
recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being
second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court
having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive
petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said
order passed. ”
Suffice to say, further detention of the appellants as undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. In view of above, the present appeal is allowed. Appellants are
ordered to be released on regular bail on their 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 appellants shall remain bound by the following conditions:
(i) The appellants shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The appellants shall not tamper with any evidence, oral
or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The appellants shall not absent themselves on any date
before the trial.
(iv) The appellants shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
(v) The appellants shall deposit their passport, if any, with
the trial Court.
(vi) The appellants shall give their cellphone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station
and shall not change their cell-phone number without
prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The appellants shall not in any manner try to delay the
trial.

9. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.13 16:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.

7
CRA-S-2553-2026 (O&M) P a g e |


State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
appellants.
10. Ordered accordingly.
11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
12. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.





( SUMEET GOEL )
13.11.2026 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.13 16:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.