Daljit Singh vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-20608 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
261
CRM-M-20608 of 2026
Date of Decision: 31.08.2026
Daljit Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT

Present:- Mr. Sahazpal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab
N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present first regular bail
application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail in FIR No. 256 dated
10.06.2023, registered under Sections 201, 307, 323 and 325 read
with Section 34 IPC (corresponding to Sections 238, 109, 115(2) and
117 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and
Section 52 of the Prisons Act, 1894, at Police Station City Barnala,
District Barnala, Punjab.
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-20608 of 2026 -2-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a
perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1), it is apparent that the whole story
has been concocted by the complainant and the petitioner has been
falsely involved. Apart from that, even no specific overt-act or injury
has been attributed to the present petitioner. Further, no injury
sustained by the complainant has been declared to be dangerous to
life and the offence under Section 307 IPC has been added only to
make the offence graver. The petitioner was arrested in the present
th
case on 10 June 2023 and is in custody for the last more than 03
years and 02 months. Learned counsel submits that even though the
petitioner is involved in other cases also, but the same can never be
served as a ground for rejection of his bail application in view of the
fact that the petitioner has suffered such a long period of
incarceration. Apart from that, the main accused in the present case
has already been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide
order dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-3).
3. A status report by way of an affidavit of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Barnala, District Barnala, has
been filed on behalf of respondent-State and the same is taken on
record. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there
are serious allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner is not
entitled for the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-20608 of 2026 -3-
further submits that eleven more FIRs were registered against the
petitioner and in view of his criminal antecedents, the petitioner is not
entitled to concession of bail being a habitual offender.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record very carefully.
5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of “Ranjan Dwivedi Vs. CBI, through the Director General,
2012(8) SCC 495; 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 880” as follows:-
“14. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (supra), another
Constitution Bench considered the right to speedy trial
and opined that the delay is dependent on the
circumstances of each case, because reasons for delay
will vary. This Court held :
"84. The right to a speedy trial is a derivation from a
provision of Magna Carta. This principle has also been
incorporated into the Virginia Declaration of Rights of
1776 and from there into the Sixth Amendment of the
Constitution of United States of America which reads,
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial...". It may be pointed
out, in this connection, that there is a Federal Act of
1974 called 'Speedy Trial Act' establishing a set of time-
limits for carrying out the major events, e.g.,
information, indictment, arraignment, in the prosecution
of criminal cases. [See Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn.
Page 1400].
85. The right to a speedy trial is not only an important
safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-20608 of 2026 -4-
incarceration, to minimise anxiety and concern
accompanying the accusation and to limit the possibility
of impairing the ability of an accused to defend himself
but also there is a societal interest in providing a speedy
trial. This right has been actuated in the recent past and
the courts have laid down a series of decisions opening
up new vistas of fundamental rights. In fact, lot of cases
are coming before the courts for quashing of proceedings
on the ground of inordinate and undue delay stating that
the invocation of this right even need not await formal
indictment or charge.
86. The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as
an essential part of the fundamental right to life and
liberty guaranteed and preserved under our
Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the
actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent
incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the
stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision
so that any possible prejudice that may result from
impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the
commission of the offence till it consummates into a
finality, can be averted. In this context, it may be noted
that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is
properly reflected in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
87. This Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home
Secretary, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1360, State of Bihar
while dealing with Article 21 of the Constitution of India
has observed thus: (SCC p. 89, para 5)
"No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick
trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-20608 of 2026 -5-
would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no
doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean
reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential
part of the fundamental right to life and liberty
enshrined in Article 21. The question which would,
however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if
a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and
is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as
a result of a long delayed trial in violation of his
fundamental right under Article 21. Would he be entitled
to be released unconditionally freed from the charge
levelled against him on the ground that trying him after
an unduly long period of time and convicting him after
such trial would constitute violation of his fundamental
right under Article 21."
See also (1) Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (I), (2)
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of
Bihar, (3) Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary,
State of Bihar, Patna, (4) Hussainara Khatoon (VI) v.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Govt. of Bihar, Patna,
(5) Kadra Pahadia v. State of Bihar (II), (6) T.V.
Vatheeswaran v. State of T.N., and (7) Abdul Rehman
Antulay v. R.S. Nayak. 88. Thus this Court by a line of
judicial pronouncements has emphasised and re-
emphasised that speedy trial is one of the facets of the
fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article
21 and the law must ensure 'reasonable, just and fair'
procedure which has a creative connotation after the
decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi."
The Court further observed : "92. Of course, no length of
time is per se too long to pass scrutiny under this
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-20608 of 2026 -6-
principle nor the accused is called upon the show the
actual prejudice by delay of disposal of cases. On the
other hand, the court has to adopt a balancing approach
by taking note of the possible prejudices and
disadvantages to be suffered by the accused by avoidable
delay and to determine whether the accused in a
criminal proceeding has been deprived of his right of
having speedy trial with unreasonable delay which could
be identified by the factors - (1) length of delay, (2) the
justification for the delay, (3) the accused's assertion of
his right to speedy trial, and (4) prejudice caused to the
accused by such delay. However, the fact of delay is
dependent on the circumstances of each case because
reasons for delay will vary, such as delay in
investigation on account of the widespread ramification
of crimes and its designed network either nationally or
internationally, the deliberate absence of witness or
witnesses, crowded dockets on the file of the court etc."
6. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu
and others v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1978 SC 429 has held as
under:-
“Bail or Jail”- at the pre-trial or post-conviction stage -
largely hinged on judicial discretion. The learned Judge
held that personal liberty was too precious a value of
our constitutional system recognised under Article 21
that the crucial power to negate it was a great trust
exercisable not casually but judicially, with lively
concern for the cost to the individual and the community.
It was further held that deprivation of personal freedom
must be founded on the most serious considerations
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-20608 of 2026 -7-
relevant to the welfare objectives of society specified in
the Constitution. The learned Judge quoted Lord Russel
who had said that bail was not to be withheld as a
punishment and that the requirements as to bail were
merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.
According to V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., the principal rule to
guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of
the applicant to take judgment and serve sentence in the
event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment.
After holding that it makes sense to assume that a man
on bail has a better chance to prepare and present his
case than one remanded in custody the learned Judge
observed that if public justice is to be promoted
mechanical detention should be demoted.
7. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc Vs The State of Punjab,
AIR 1980 SC 1632, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed as
under:-
“Judges have to decide cases as they come before them,
mindful of the need to keep passions and prejudices out
of their decisions. The Court has also observed that in
which case bail should be granted and in which case it
should be refused is a matter of discretion. The court
found it interesting to note that as long back as in 1924 it
was held by the High Court of Calcutta in Nagendra Vs.
King Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476, that the object of
bail was to secure the attendance of the accused at the
trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution of
the question whether bail should be granted or refused
was whether it was probable that the party would appear
to take his trial and that it was indisputable that bail was
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-20608 of 2026 -8-
not to be withheld as a punishment. The Supreme Court
also referred to the observation of the Allahabad High
Court in K.N. Joglekar Vs. Emperor, AIR 1931
Allahabad 504, that Section 498 of the Old Code which
corresponds to Section 439 of the New Code, conferred
upon the Sessions Judge or the High Court wide powers
to grant bail which were not handicapped by the
restrictions in the preceding Section 497 which
corresponds to the present Section 437. The Allahabad
High Court had also observed that there was no hard
and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the
exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 498 and
that the only principle which was established was that
the discretion should be exercised judiciously. The
Supreme Court referred also the decision of the
Allahabad High Court in Emperor Vs. H.L. Hutchinson,
AIR 1931 Allahabad 356, wherein it was held that the
principle to be deduced from the various sections in the
Cr.P.C. was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is
the exception, that as a presumably innocent person, the
accused person is entitled to freedom and every
opportunity to look after his own case and to establish
his innocence and that an accused person who enjoys
freedom is in a much better position to look after his
case and to properly defend himself than if he were in
custody. The High Court had also held that it would be
very unwise to make an attempt to lay down any
particular rules which would bind the High Court,
having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the
discretion of the Court unfettered. According to the High
Court, the variety of cases that may arise from time to
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-20608 of 2026 -9-
time cannot be safely classified and it is dangerous to
make an attempt to classify the cases and to say that in
particular classes bail may be granted but not in other
classes. The Supreme Court apparently approved the
above views and observations and held (vide paragraph
30) as follows :
"It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail
or not depends for its answer upon a variety of
circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter
into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance
cannot be treated as of universal validity or as
necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail."
8. At this stage, it is observed that the object of the bail is to
secure the presence of the accused at the trial only. It is also observed
that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive and
deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is
required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when
called upon. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed in catena of
judgments that when a person is punished by denial of bail in respect
of any matter upon which he has not been convicted it would be
contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the
Constitution except in cases where there is reason to believe that he
may influence the witnesses. It is appropriate to say that pre-
conviction detention should not be resorted to, except in cases of
necessity to secure attendance at the trial or upon material that the
accused will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty.
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-20608 of 2026 -10-
9. No doubt, the allegations levelled against the petitioner
are serious in nature and in the past also he was involved in several
other cases. However, he cannot be confined in jail for an indefinite
period as an undertrial prisoner. The petitioner is stated to be in
custody for the last more than 03 years and 02 months and the
prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness so far.
Thus, the trial against the petitioner has been unreasonably delayed by
the prosecution and the petition deserves to be allowed by this Court.
10. In view of the above, without commenting any further on
the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered
to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned
subject to the following conditions:-
(i) 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 to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other
authority.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court
on the dates fixed for hearing of the case.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the
Court proceedings except on the prior permission of the
Court concerned.
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if
already not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of
the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect.
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-20608 of 2026 -11-
(v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the
concerned Court, mentioning his ordinary place of
residence and number of mobile phone, which shall be
used by him during the pendency of the trial. In case of
change of place of residence/mobile number, he shall
share the details with the concerned Court/learned Trial
Court.
(vi) In case, the petitioner gets involved in any other
criminal activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall
be viewed seriously and the prosecution shall be at
liberty to move an appropriate application for
cancellation of bail granted to the present petitioner.
( vii) The concerned Court may insist two heavy local
surties and may also impose any other condition, in
accordance with law, while accepting the bails bonds
and surety bonds of the petitioner.
st
(viii) The petitioner shall report every 1 Monday in
English calander month before the concerned SHO till
the conclusion of the trial and SHO shall mark his
presence by making an entry in the Rojnamcha. In case,
st
he does not report on every 1 Monday before the
concerned SHO, it shall be viewed seriously and the
concession granted to him shall be liable to be
cancelled and the State of Punjab shall be at liberty to
move an appropriate application in this regard.
31.08.2026 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document