Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

This petition is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.52 dated 24.05.2017, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Immigration Act, Police Station Phase-XI, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

¶16

The abovementioned FIR has come into being at the instance of ‘Sukhpreet Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It has been stated by the above-named complainant that in May 2012, ‘Baljeet Singh’ (the petitioner herein) published a newspaper advertisement promising three-year work permits for Australia through his firm ‘MBH Group’. According to complainant, he contacted the firm where, by showing fake offer letter, he was induced to pay Rs.2,50,000/- in cash (deposited in an account in Axis Bank) for visa processing. As per complainant, when the

¶17

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.13 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-13866-2026 (O&M)

¶19

2

¶20

visa was not provided, he sought a refund and the petitioner issued two cheques, out of which one had expired and the second one was dishonoured with remarks ‘payment stopped’. As per complainant, neither he was sent to abroad, nor his money was returned, and thus, he has been cheated.

¶21

It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

¶22

4. Notice of motion .

¶23

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The record has been perused carefully.

¶26

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:-

¶27

i. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than two years and three months;

¶28

ii. that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

¶29

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.13 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-13866-2026 (O&M)

¶31

3

¶32

iii. that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of abovementioned offence is imprisonment up to seven years;

¶33

iv. that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of fourteen prosecution witnesses, only three have been examined so far;

¶34

v. that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

¶35

vi. that detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose;

¶36

vii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

¶37

viii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

¶38

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an

¶39

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.13 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

CRM-M-13866-2026 (O&M)

¶41

4

¶42

exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.

¶43

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

¶44

Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

¶45

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.13 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

CRM-M-13866-2026 (O&M)

¶47

5

¶48

India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”.

¶49

To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “ Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

¶50

If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶51

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed . The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the

¶52

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.13 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

CRM-M-13866-2026 (O&M)

¶54

6

¶55

satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession

¶56

shall be subject to following conditions:-

¶57

(i) that 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;

¶58

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and

¶59

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶60

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

¶61

13.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶62

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.13 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Baljeet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljeet 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

M/S Lumicity Semiconductor Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Pushpa & Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ram Parshad and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Shiv Kumar @ Kaku Vs State of Haryana

Saurav Alias Vikas Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Anchal Devi and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another