Deepak Singh @ Laddi vs State Of Punjab And Anr
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
-1-
CRA-S No.2806 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S No.2806 of 2026
Deepak Singh alias Laddi ... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 11.11.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 13.11.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 13.11.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
Full
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. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
*
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
MANJU
2026.11.13 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh
-2-
CRA-S No.2806 of 2026
(for short ‘the SC/ST Act’) by the appellant challenging the order dated
27.08.2026 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in case arising out of
FIR No.08 dated 06.01.2024, registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 325,
307, 323, 396 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1) of SC/ST Act at Police Station
Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, whereby an application filed by the appellant
under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
regular bail, had been dismissed.
2. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that the
aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the
respondent No.2-complainant Kashmira Lal alleging that on 05.01.2024, the
appellant along with the co-accused had opened an assault upon his son Sahil
i.e. the victim, when the latter along with the respondent No.2 and his son
Gaurav, was serving milk to devotees in a langar. The appellant had struck
blow with a dang hitting elbow of the victim whereas others had also caused
injuries on his person with their respective weapons. The respondent No.2 and
his brother had tried to save the victim but they too sustained injuries at the
hands of the assailants who had then managed to flee from the spot. Offences
under Section 307 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) of SC&ST Act were added
and Section 379 of IPC was deleted. The victim Sahil succumbed to the
injuries during the course of treatment. Postmortem examination of his dead
MANJU
2026.11.13 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh
-3-
CRA-S No.2806 of 2026
body was conducted. The appellant was arrested on 18.01.2024. He had
previously moved application for grant of regular bail which was dismissed
by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide order
dated 23.12.2024. The appeal bearing CRA-S-1005-2025 was filed by the
appellant against the said order which too had been dismissed by this Court
vide order dated 06.11.2025.
3. As revealed from the record, the appellant then moved another
application for grant of regular bail before the learned trial Court which had
been dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.08.2026.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set
aside as while passing the same, the learned trial Court ignored the fact that
the appellant has suffered prolonged incarceration of a period of more than 02
years and 09 months. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future
as only 03 witnesses have been examined so far. His antecedents are clean.
The co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. Principle of parity weighs
in his favour. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a fresh reason
to him to seek concession of bail. The injury attributed to him on the person
of the victim has been opined to be simple in nature. The ingredients for
Section 3 of SC/ST Act are not attracted against him since he himself belonged
to Scheduled Caste community. There is drastic change in the circumstances
MANJU
2026.11.13 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh
-4-
CRA-S No.2806 of 2026
as similarly situated co-accused Shiv Charanjit and Amritpal Singh have been
extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the appeal deserves to be
allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and he deserves to be
released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the appeal is not
maintainable. The allegations against the appellant are serious in nature. The
trial is going on at a proper pace. Previously also, an appeal had been filed by
the appellant which had been dismissed. There is no drastic change in the
circumstances. It is, therefore, argued that the appeal does not deserve to be
allowed.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. The appellant is alleged to have formed membership of an
unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object
thereof is alleged to have caused injuries to the victim thereby causing his
homicidal death by striking blows with a dang. The appellant has also been
linked with the offence with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. Though the
allegations make out a prima facie case as against him, however, he has been
in custody previously for a period of more than 02 years and 09 months. The
trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as only 03 out of 24
prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. It is well settled proposition
of law that deprivation of the personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is
MANJU
2026.11.13 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh
-5-
CRA-S No.2806 of 2026
not in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution of
India. Even in cases of serious offences, where some amount of deprivation
of personal liberty cannot be avoided, if such period becomes unduly long,
the same is against the fairness assured by Article 21 of the Constitution. In
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra and another , 2024
INSC 645, it had been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that, howsoever,
serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined
under the Constitution of India. Bail is not to be withheld as punishment. It
was also observed that 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. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court had further observed that the over-arching postulate of
criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless
proven guilty, cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal
law may be and direction was given for release of appellant on bail.
8. Reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab , (1980)
2 SCC 565 to the effect that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of
MANJU
2026.11.13 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh
-6-
CRA-S No.2806 of 2026
the accused at the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the
question whether the bail should be granted or refused or whether it is
probable that the party will appear to take its trial and it is indisputable that
the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
9. The question of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay
engaged the attention of Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case cited as
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022)
10 SCC 51, wherein while considering the correct approach towards bail, with
respect to several enactments, it was observed that the provisions contained in
Section 436-A of Criminal Procedure Code which requires inter alia, the
accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified
periods, would apply to Special Acts also in the absence of specific provisions.
In view of the above discussed position of law and applying the same to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be
admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds as well as surety
bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate
concerned and on the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
MANJU
2026.11.13 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh
-7-
CRA-S No.2806 of 2026
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
(ii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and
every date fixed, unless his presence is exempted by the
learned trial Court.
(iii) He shall provide details of his permanent address as
well as present address before the learned trial Court at the
time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same
without informing the trial Court.
(iv) He shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card
(if any) and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the
learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and
in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes
place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned
trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone
switch on all times.
10. In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned
conditions, the respondent-State shall also be at liberty to move an application
seeking cancellation of the bail.
11. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only
for the purpose of deciding the present appeal and the same shall have no
MANJU
2026.11.13 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh
-8-
CRA-S No.2806 of 2026
bearing on the merits of the case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
13.11.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MANJU
2026.11.13 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh