Allowed

Jagdip Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Feb 2026CRM-M/46022/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail application of accused charged with murder. Court noted petitioner already in custody over a year, major role attributed to co-accused on bail, and prolonged trial violates right to speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bonds to satisfaction of trial Court subject to conditions regarding interference and travel.

Jagdip Singh Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

111 CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.02.2026

Jagdip Si n gh

..... Petiti o ner

VERS U S

State of P unjab

..... Respon d ent [ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

¶10

Present : Mr. Amit Agnihotri, Advoc a te for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advoc a te for the complainant. *****

¶12

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

¶13

CRM-35420-2025

¶14

This is an application seekin g for placing on record the repl y on behalf of complainant. For the reasons s t ated in the application, the sam e is hereby a l lowed and the reply annexed with the application is taken on record.

¶15

CRM-M-46022-2025

¶16

This petition for bail is the f irst petition, filed by the petiti o ner under Se c tion 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nag a rik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been file d with regard to a case arising o u t of FIR No.294 dated 14.09.2 0 19, for the c o mmission of offence punishabl e under Sections 302, 34 of In d ian Penal co d e and Sections 25 & 27 of Arm s Act, Police Station Division N o .8, District L udhiana.

¶17

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instanc e of ‘Randeep Kaur’, hereinafter being referr e d to as ‘complainant’ only. It w as stated by the above-named complainant t hat on 13.09.2019, she, along w ith her husb a nd Manjeet Singh, attended a birthday party at Castle Bar, Pavi l ion Mall, Lu d hiana. According to above-na m ed complainant, there at aro u nd 12:00 night, there was a heated argumen t between Jagdeep Singh (petiti o ner herein), B indi and other persons. As per complainant, her husband Man j eet Singh ha d intervened to resolve the is s ue, but Jagdeep Singh and B i ndi pushed M anjeet Singh several times, w h ich led to a scuffle between o ne unknown person on one side and husba n d of the petitioner on other sid e . It was alleged by the complainant that she, too, tried to intervene, but she w as pushed a s ide and then Bindi took out a w eapon from his waist belt and f i red a gunsho t , which hit the left rib of her h u sband (Manjeet Singh) and pro v ed to be fata l .

¶21

It is the case of the prosecut i on that in view of abovementio n ed statemen t , formal FIR of this case was lo d ged and the investigation taken up. 5. The learned State Counsel h as filed custody certificate of the petitione r . The same be taken on record.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

It has been contended by le a rned counsel for the petitioner t hat the conte n ts of FIR itself make it clear t h at cause of death of Manjeet Si n gh was guns h ot injury, which has been attr i buted to the co-accused Jaswi n der Singh @ Bindi. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶24

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

allegatio n s against the petitioner are that h e simply pushed the deceased, j ust before th e gunshot injury.

¶28

It has also been con t ended by learned counsel for the petitione r that in the present case, two different trials are simultaneo u sly progressi n g and in one of the trial pendi n g against Jaswinder Singh @Bi n di, the state m ent of complainant has already been recorded, wherein she has not supporte d the prosecution case qua th e involvement of Jaswinder Si n gh @Bindi a nd others in the commission o f crime. As per learned counsel for the petiti o ner, although the main allegati o n for causing fatal injury has been attribute d to Jaswinder Singh @Bindi, b u t he has already been enlarge d on bail.

¶29

The learned State Counsel b e ing assisted by learned counsel for the com p lainant has controverted the abovementioned arguments. T he learned c o unsel for the complainant has contended that in the present c a se, allegatio n s against the petitioner are of s erious nature. The learned cou n sel for the complainant has tried to build-up h is argument on the plea that in f act there is a constant threat to the complai n ant and on account of that th r eat only, she had been left with no option, but not to support the prosecu t ion case.

¶30

According to learned couns e l for the complainant, if the s a me benefit i s accorded to the petitioner, he, too, will prevail upon the complain a nt and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefi t of bail. It h a s also been contended by learn e d counsel for the complainant t hat for re-ex a mination of the complainant, a n application under Section 31 1 of

¶31

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M)

¶33

¶34

CrPC ha s also been filed, before the lea r ned trial Court, which is yet t o be finally decided, as stay order has been pa s sed by this Court.

¶35

The record has been perused carefully.

¶36

A perusal of record shows t h at in the present case, following are the relev a nt factors which are required t o be taken into consideration f o r a decision: -

¶37

i) that the petitioner is alread y in custody for a period of m ore than 01 year and 05 ½ mont h s;

¶38

ii) that as per contents of FIR, t h e allegations against the petiti o ner are of pushing the deceased and except that, no overt or co v ert has been attributed to the p etitioner, which might have been responsible for the death of M anjeet Singh;

¶39

iii) that the accused Jaswinder Singh @Bindi to whom gun s hot injury has been attributed ha s already been enlarged on bail;

¶40

i v ) that the statement of compla i nant has already been recorded;

¶41

v ) that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of petitioner;

¶42

v i) that the trial is not likely to b e concluded in near future;

¶43

v i i) that the detention of the p e titioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose;

¶44

v i ii) that there is nothing on rec o rd to show that if released on b ail, the petitioner may tamper w ith the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

¶45

i x ) that there is nothing on rec o rd to show that if released on b ail, the petitioner will not partici p ate/cooperate in the trial.

¶46

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M)

¶48

¶49

In the present case, the pr i nciples of law laid down by the Hon’ble S upreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus Stat e of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R. C .R. (Criminal) 131, are relev a nt, wherein i t has been observed that “a f undamental postulate of crim i nal jurisprud e nce is the presumption of i n nocence, meaning thereby th a t a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a r e verse onus has been placed o n an accused w ith regard to some specific off e nces but that is another matter a nd does not d etract from the fundamental p o stulate in respect of other offen c es. Yet anot h er important facet of our crimi n al jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is th e general rule and putting a p e rson in jail or in a prison or in a correctio n home (whichever expressio n one may wish to use) is an exceptio n . Unfortunately, some of these b asic principles appear to have been lost sigh t of with the result that m o re and more persons are b e ing incarcera t ed and for longer periods. T h is does not do any good to our criminal j urisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the gran t or denial of bail is entirely the discretion o f the judge considering a case but even so, t he exercise of judicial discretio n has been circumscribed by a l a rge number o f decisions rendered by this Co u rt and by every High Court in the country. Y et, occasionally there is a nec e ssity to introspect whether den y ing bail to a n accused person is the right t h ing to do on the facts and in the circumst a nces of a case”.

¶50

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Cour t of India in the case of ‘Satender Kum a r Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investiga t ion and Another’, (2022) 10 S C C 51, are also relevant in this c a se.

¶51

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M)

¶53

¶54

In the ab o vementioned case, it has been o bserved that “the rate of convic t ion in crimin a l cases in India is abysmally l o w. It appears to us that this fa c tor weighs o n the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications i n a negative s ense. Courts tend to think that t he possibility of a conviction b e ing nearer to rarity, bail applications will ha v e to be decided strictly, contrar y to legal principles. We cannot mix up consi d eration of a bail application, w h ich is not pu n itive in nature with that of a p o ssible adjudication by way of t r ial. On the c o ntrary, an ultimate acquittal w ith continued custody would b e a case of g r ave injustice”.

¶55

Recently, in the case of ‘ Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 3 2 2, the Hon’ble Supreme Cour t of India ha s observed that “if an accus e d is to get a final verdict after incarcera t ion of six to seven years in j a il as an undertrial prisoner, t h en, definitel y , it could be said that his right t o have a speedy trial under Art i cle 21 of the Constitution has been infringe d ”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble S upreme Court of India in the a b ovementioned case that “delays are bad for t h e accused and extremely bad fo r the victims, for Indian society a nd for the c r edibility of our justice syste m , which is valued. Judges are the masters o f their Courtrooms and the C riminal Procedure Code prov i des many to o ls for the Judges to use in o r der to ensure that cases proceed efficientl y ”.

¶56

To elucidate further, this C o urt is conscious of the basic a nd fundame n tal principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasona b le, fair and j ust procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitutio n of

¶57

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

CRM-M-46022-2025 (O&M)

¶59

¶60

India. Th i s constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mand a ted by Hon’ b le Apex court in “ Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab a nd Another” , 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

¶61

If the cumulative effect o f all the abovementioned fact o rs, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads t o a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled f or the benefit of bail, and that the present p e tition deserves to be allowed.

¶62

Accordingly, without comm e nting anything on the merits o f the case, the p resent petition is hereby allowed . The petitioner is hereby ord e red to be released on bail on furnishing pers o nal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfacti o n of learned trial Court. Howe v er the abovementioned conces s ion

¶63

shall be s u bject to following conditions:-

¶64

(i ) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make a ny inducement, threat or prom i se to any person acquainted w ith the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such f a cts to the Court or to any other a uthority.

¶65

(i i ) that the petitioner shall at th e time of execution of bond, fur n ish the address to the Court co n cerned and shall notify the cha n ge in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the t r ial; and

¶66

(i i i) that the petitioner shall not l e ave India without prior permis s ion of the trial Court;

¶67

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 27.02.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasone d Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶68

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jagdip Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdip Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ved Parkash Vs State of Haryana

Shakib Ali Vs State of Haryana

Mani Karan Singh @ Mani Vs State of Punjab

Angrej Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manminderjit Singh Alias Manga Vs State of Punjab

Harsh Vs State of Haryana