Davinder Saini Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Davinder Saini Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; bail refused. Trial Court directed to make every possible effort to expedite the trial and to pass effective orders as per law against the defaulting witnesses.

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Davinder Saini, accused in FIR No.188 dated 08.11.2018 (PS Dinanagar, Gurdaspur) under Sections 302, 307, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, in custody for over five years with the trial proceeding slowly, is entitled to release on regular bail. +1 more

Court's answer

Though the petitioner's custody period is 05 years, 03 months and 17 days, the Court cannot ignore the role attributed to him - gun-shot injuries to the deceased along with co-accused - besides his being a convict in two other cases, his earlier declaration as a Proclaimed Offender, and the grave nature of the offence entailing punishment upto death.

Ratio / Principle

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner; the bail petition is dismissed.

Key takeaways

Having regard to the custody period of the petitioner, the trial Court is again directed to make every possible effort to expedite the trial by passing effective orders as per law against the defaulting witnesses.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J.) dismisses the second regular bail petition under Section 483 BNSS 2023 (old Section 439 Cr.P.C) of Davinder Saini, accused in FIR No.188 dated 08.11.2018, PS Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act for the murder of Sukhwinder Singh alias Mukhwinder; the petitioner, along with co-accused Kaka alias Gurpreet, is attributed gun-shot injuries to the deceased. Custody period is 05 years, 03 months and 17 days; only 04 of 38 prosecution witnesses examined; eye-witness Suraj still unexamined. His earlier bail petition (CRM-M-5755 of 2023) was dismissed on 13.05.2024; he was declared a Proclaimed Offender on 28.01.2019, arrested 07.09.2019, and is a convict in two jail-offence cases. Holding the role attributed, antecedents and grave nature of the offence against him, the Court declined bail despite prolonged custody and slow trial, while again directing the trial Court to expedite the trial and pass effective orders against defaulting witnesses.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-42072 of 2024 Date of Decision: 13.01.2025

Davinder Saini .....Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (old Section 439 Cr.P.C), petitioner prays for his

release on regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.188 dated 08.11.2018

registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act

at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur.

It is his second petition for the purpose. The earlier petition bearing

CRM-M-5755 of 2023 (O&M) was dismissed by this Court along with two other

connected petitions, vide a consolidated order dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure P.14).

RENU 2025.01.14 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

��

It is contended by learned counsel that by way of the order dated

13.05.2024, this Court had directed the trial Court to make every possible effort to conclude the trial expeditiously by giving short dates. However, the position has not improved inasmuch as only 04 witnesses out of 38 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined so far and thus, trial is likely to take long time to conclude. It is

also the contention of learned counsel that custody period of the petitioner is more than 05 years and 03 months and that non-conclusion of the trial expeditiously by the

trial Court has resulted in infringement of the right to speedy trial of the petitioner as

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Strongly opposing the bail petition, learned State Counsel has drawn

attention towards the fact that the petitioner and co-accused are alleged to have committed murder of Sukhwinder Singh alias Mukhwinder. It is petitioner – Davinder

Saini who along with Kaka alias Gurpreet are attributed to have given gun-shot injuries

to the deceased and the complainant- Piara Singh has supported the prosecution

during trial in this regard. Learned State Counsel has further pointed out that the petitioner was earlier declared Proclaimed Offender on 28.01.2019 and was later on

arrested on 07.09.2019. Attention is also drawn towards the criminal antecedents of

the petitioner, as is evident from the custody certificate revealing that he is convict in

two cases pertaining to jail offences and is also under-trial in a case under the

��

RENU 2025.01.14 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

��

provisions of Arms Act. Learned State Counsel further submits that one of the eye

witnesses- namely, Suraj is yet to be examined and that in case the petitioner is allowed

bail, he may threaten the witnesses. By pointing out towards the various zimni orders

passed by the trial Court after order dated 13.05.2024 passed by this Court, it is

submitted that the trial was not delayed only on account of the prosecution and that on

some of the dates, one or the other accused had not appeared.

I have considered the submissions of both the sides and appraised the

record.

It is true that custody period of the petitioner is 05 years, 03 months and

17 days as per the custody certificate placed on record but the Court cannot ignore the

role attributed to the petitioner who is alleged to have given gun-shot injuries to the

deceased along with co-accused. Besides, the petitioner is convict in two other cases.

Earlier, the petitioner had been declared as a Proclaimed Offender. The nature of

offence is quite grave entailing the punishment upto death as was also noticed in the

earlier order.

Having noticed all the afore-said facts and circumstances, but without

commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the

benefit of bail to the petitioner. As such, bail petition is dismissed. However, having

regard to the custody period of the petitioner, the trial Court is again directed to make

��

RENU 2025.01.14 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

��

every possible effort to expedite the trial by passing the effective orders as per law

against the defaulting witnesses.

January 13 , 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

��

RENU 2025.01.14 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh