Harbhajan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Th i s petition for bail is the first p e tition, filed by the petitioner u n der Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraks h a Sanhita, 2023’. It has been f i led with regard to a case arising out of FIR N o.24 dated 24.02.2004, for the commission of offence punishable under Secti o ns 302, 120-B, 148/149 of In d ian Penal Code, Po l ice Station Morinda, District R o par, Punjab. 2. Th e abovementioned FIR came i n to being at the instance of ‘ Z ora Singh, hereina ft er being referred to as ‘comp l ainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named c o mplainant that on 24.02.2004 at about 7:00 PM his son, na m ely ‘Paramjit Sing h ’, had gone to meet Avatar S ingh (accused in this case) at his Village Dhoom c herri and did not return there a fter. As per complainant, whe n he visited the house of Avtar Singh, he found t he motor-cycle of Paramjit Si n gh parked outside t he house, and that Paramjit Si n gh was lying on the floor in a p ool of blood, with h is hands and feet tied with a cl o th inside the house of Avtar Si n gh. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-4208-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶16

The complaina n t further stated that Amar Sin g h armed with datar, Balbir Si n gh with a sword, J aspinder Singh with stick an d Harbhajan Singh (the petitio n erherein) with stick and hockey stick were inflicting injuries on the perso n of Paramjit Singh and that on account of the i n juries suffered in the above- s aid incident, Param j it Singh passed away.

¶17

It i s the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above-mentio n ed statement, for m al FIR of this case was lodg e d and the investigation taken up. According to t h e prosecution during the course of investigation, the petitioner w as found to be in n ocent and therefore, in the re p ort under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the petitioner was n ot prosecuted. 4. It i s relevant to mention here th a t the trial commenced against the other accused a nd during the course of trial an application under Section 3 19 Cr.P.C was fil e d. On consideration of above- m entioned application, the lear n ed trial Court sum m oned the present petitioner as o ne the accused in the present ca s e.

¶18

He a rd.

¶19

Th e record has been perused caref u lly.

¶20

A p erusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the

¶21

relevant factors which are required to be taken i n to consideration for a decision: -

¶22

i) tha t the petitioner is already in cu s tody for a period of more tha n 07 mo n ths and 13 days;

¶23

ii) tha t the petitioner has clean antece d ents;

¶24

iii) tha t the petitioner was declared in n ocent by the Investigating age n cy an d therefore, his detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not lik e ly to serve any purpose;

¶25

iv) tha t the investigation in this case is already complete and theref o re, not h ing has been left to be r e covered from the possession of pet i tioner;

¶26

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-4208-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶28

v) tha t the trial is not likely to be co n cluded in near future as out o f 22 pr o secution witnesses only two ha v e been examined, so far;

¶29

vi) tha t there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the pet i tioner may tamper with the e v idence or influence the witnes s es; an d

¶30

vii) tha t there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the pet i tioner will not participate/coop e rate in the trial. 8. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon ’ ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Datara m versus State of Uttar Pradesh a nd another”, 2018 ( 2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption o f innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until f o und guilty. However, there are i nstances in our criminal law w h ere a reverse onus h as been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offe n ces but that is anot h er matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulat e in respect of other offences. Yet another importan t facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and p u tting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correc t ion home (whichever express i on one may wish to use) is an exception. Unf o rtunately, some of these basic p rinciples appear to have been l ost sight of with th e result that more and more per s ons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to o ur criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or de n ial of bail is entirely the discre t ion of the judge co n sidering a case but even so, th e exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscr i bed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court an d by every High Co u rt in the country. Yet, occasion a lly there is a necessity to intros p ect whether denyin g bail to an accused person is t h e right thing to do on the facts a nd

¶31

in the circumst a nces of a case”. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CRM-M-4208-2026 (O&M) -4-

¶33

Th e principles laid down by the H on’ble the Supreme Court of I n dia in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. C e ntral Bureau of Investigation a nd Another’, (202 2 ) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant i n this case. In the abovementio n ed case, it has bee n observed that “the rate of con v iction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this fact o r weighs on the mind of the C o urt while deciding the bail applications in a negat i ve sense. Courts tend to think t hat the possibility o f a conviction being nearer to r arity, bail applications will hav e to be decided stric t ly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideratio n of a bail application, which is not punitive i n nature with that of a poss i ble adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, a n ultimate acquittal with contin u ed custody would b e a case of grave injustice”. 10. Re c ently, in the case of ‘Ta p as Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2 025 SCC Online SC 322, the H on’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “ i f an accused is to get a final v erdict after incarceration of si x to seven years in j ail as an undertrial prisoner, t h en, definitely, it could be said t hat his right to ha v e a speedy trial under Articl e 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It h a s also been observed by the Ho n ’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementione d case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credi b ility of our justice system, whic h is valued. Judges are the masters of their Court r ooms and the Criminal Proce d ure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that c a ses proceed efficie n tly”.

¶34

To elucidate further, this Cour t is conscious of the basic a nd fundamental pr i nciple of law that right to spee d y trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just proce d ure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. T his TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CRM-M-4208-2026 (O&M) -5-

¶36

constitutional right cannot be denied to the acc u sed as mandated by Hon’ble A p ex court in “ Balwi n der Singh versus State of Punj a b and Another”, 2024 SCC On l ine SC 4354.

¶37

If t he cumulative effect of all the a b ovementioned factors, involve d in the instant cas e , is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is ent i tled for the benefit of bail, and t hat the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶38

Ac c ordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the c a se, the present pet i tion is hereby allowed . The p etitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bai l on furnishing personal bond a n d surety bond(s) to the satisfac t ion of learned trial C ourt. However the abovementioned concession shall be subje c t to following conditions:-

¶39

(i) th a t the petitioner shall not d irectly or indirectly make a ny in d ucement, threat or promise to a n y person acquainted with the f a cts of t he case, so as to dissuade him t o disclose such facts to the Cou r t or to a ny other authority;

¶40

(ii) th a t the petitioner shall at the tim e of execution of bond, furnish the ad d ress to the Court concerned an d shall notify the change in add r ess to t he trial Court, till the final deci s ion of the trial; and

¶41

(iii) th a t the petitioner shall not leave I n dia without prior permission o f the tri a l Court.

¶42

April 23, 2026 (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶43

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.24 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbhajan 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

Kamaljit Alias Gora Vs State of Punjab

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jatinder Singh @ Kaku Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Bhatti Vs State of Punjab

Yogesh Vs State of Haryana

Harpreet Singh @ Kaka Vs State of Punjab