Allowed¶31

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC27 May 2025CRM-M/16672/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana HC, 27.05.2025, CRM-M-16672-2025 (O&M), Harpreet Singh Brar J.; regular bail granted to Satnam Singh; FIR No. 99 dated 02.11.2024, P.S. Cheema, Sangrur; Sections 110, 331(6), 115(2), 191(2), 192, 351(3), 324(6) BNS (126(2), 190 added); Section 483 BNSS 2023; custody since 27.11.2024 (~5 months 24 days); 25 PWs, none examined; parity with bailed co-accused Major Singh, Kewal Singh, Makhan Singh (CRM-M-21085-2025, CRM-M-11545-2025); Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; petition allowed, no merits comment.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioner Satnam Singh on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, without commenting on merits. ¶31

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Satnam Singh, an accused in FIR No. 99 dated 02.11.2024 (Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur) registered under Sections 110, 331(6), 115(2), 191(2), 192, 351(3), 324(6) BNS, is entitled to be released on regular bail during the pendency of trial.

¶15

Court's answer

Bail was granted primarily because the petitioner has been in custody since 27.11.2024 for 05 months and 24 days, and out of a total of 25 PWs none has been examined so far, so conclusion of the trial shall take considerable long time; culpability, if any, would be determined at trial.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and the petitioner Satnam Singh is ordered to be released on regular bail during pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, without commenting upon the merits of the case.

¶32

Key takeaways

Nothing observed in the order shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case, and the learned Court below was directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits lest the trial be prejudiced.obiter¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail — First bail petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in FIR No. 99 dated 02.11.2024, P.S. Cheema, District Sangrur (Sections 110, 331(6), 115(2), 191(2), 192, 351(3), 324(6) BNS; Sections 126(2), 190 added later). Petitioner Satnam Singh, accused of inflicting a Dang blow on the head of the victim Harinder Singh in a group assault of 01.11.2024, was in custody since 27.11.2024 (over 05 months and 24 days); of 25 PWs none had been examined, so the trial was expected to take considerable time. Counsel pleaded parity with co-accused Major Singh, Kewal Singh and Makhan Singh already bailed (orders dated 29.04.2025 and 24.04.2025 in CRM-M-21085-2025 and CRM-M-11545-2025) and argued that no offence under Section 110 BNS was made out on a vague private-doctor opinion, a point left to the trial court. Relying on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 on the plight of undertrial prisoners, the High Court allowed the petition and ordered release on regular bail during trial, expressly without commenting on merits.

¶1

CRM-M-16672-2025 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-16672-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.05.2025

SATNAM SINGH

...PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶10

Present: Mr. Sukhcharan Singh Gill, Advocate and

¶11

Ms. Navreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG Punjab.

¶13

¶14

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

¶15

This is the first petition petition filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 99 dated 02.11.2024 registered under Sections 110, 331(6), 115(2), 191(2), 192, 351(3), 324(6) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Sections 126(2), 190 of BNS added later on) at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur.

¶16

The criminal law was set into motion on the statement of complainant Sukhdev Singh to the effect that on 01.11.2024 at about 11.00 P.M. when he along with his sons Harinder Singh, Dilpreet Singh son of Jagraj Singh and Boota Singh son of Chhota Singh were talking to each other, Sita Singh his neighbourer got opened the door of his house by calling him. In the meantime, Chamkaur Singh, Seera Singh, Makhan Singh and Kewal Singh forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and dragged his son in the street by holding his arms. Complainant saw in the street light that Shanty Singh and Bunty Singh, armed with motorcycle gears fitted in the wooden log(a self designed deadly weapon), Lovepreet Singh armed with Dang, Hardeep Singh armed with AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.27 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-16672-2025 (O&M) 2

¶18

Rod, Satnam Singh (petitioner herein) armed with Dang, Amritpal Singh armed with Khapra and Major Singh armed with Dang, encircled his son Harinder Singh. Sita Singh raised exhortation stating to catch hold of son of complainant and not to spare him. In the meanwhile, Shanty Singh gave a blow of gear fitted in wooden log on the head of Harinder Singh which hit on his forehead. Bunty Singh then gave a blow with gear fitted in wooden log on the head of Harinder Singh, which hit on his left ear. Lovepreet Singh gave Dang blow on the head of Harinder Singh near his left ear. Hardeep Singh gave Rod blow in the middle of the head of Harinder Singh. Satnam Singh gave Dang blow on the backside of head of Harinder Singh. Amritpal Singh gave blow of Khapra on the head of Harinder Singh. Major Singh gave Dang blow on the head of Harinder Singh which hit behind his right ear. Harinder Singh son of the complainant started bleeding profusely and fell down. While he was lying on the ground, accused kept on inflicting injuries to him and they also damaged the main gate of house of the complainant. Complainant raised hue and cry where after the accused persons after giving threats to kill them, escaped from the spot along with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, FIR(supra) was registered.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that similarly situated co-accused Major Singh, Kewal Singh and Makhan Singh have been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 29.04.2025 and 24.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-21085-2025 and CRM-M-115452025. Further, prima facie no offence under Section 110 of BNS is made out against the petitioner, as the opinion has been procured from a private doctor. Further, the opinion is also vague, as none of the injury, individually and spe-

¶20

AJAY GOSWAMI2025.05.27 17:42 cifically, has been declared as dangerous to life and all the injuries collectively I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-16672-2025 (O&M) 3 have been declared as dangerous to life and none of the injuries suffered by the petitioner is grievous in nature and it would be a moot point to be determined by the learned trial Court, as to whether the offence under Section 110 of BNS is made out against the petitioner or not. Lastly, it is contended that all the injuries are caused by blunt weapons and the petitioner is behind the bars since 27.11.2024 i.e. for more than 05 months and 24 days.

¶22

Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner and per contra opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is one of the main accused and specific injuries have been attributed to him, however, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is confined in judicial custody for the last 05 months and 24 days and out of total 25 PWs, none has been examined so far.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since 27.11.2024 i.e. for the last 05 months and 24 days. Further, out ot total 25 PWs, none has been examined so far, thus conclusion of trial shall take considerable long time. The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial.

¶24

A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Satender Ku-

¶25

mar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 , with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:

¶26

“6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating

¶27

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.27 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-16672-2025 (O&M)

¶29

¶30

agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a demo cracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.”

¶31

In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed.

¶32

Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitionerSatnam Singh is ordered to be released on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶33

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice the trial.

¶34

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

27.05.2025 Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶37

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.27 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roop Singh Vs State of Punjab

Santokh @ Sokhi Vs State of Punjab

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Vineet Alias Vinit Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Iqbal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Yuvraj and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others