Matti Alias Mati 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.227 dated 07.12.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 115(2), 190, 191(3) and 351(2) of , Police Station Lambi, District Shri Mukatsar Sahib.

¶15

The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Rani’ hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the abovenamed complainant that on 06.12.2024, at about 08:30 P.M. her adopted son, namely Vikram, was called in the street in front of their house. According to complainant, she also followed her son. The complainant

¶16

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.28 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-9002-2026 (O&M)

¶18

2

¶19

further stated that in the street, Gaggu Singh, armed with an iron rod, Inder armed with a sharp-edged wepaon, Himmat Singh with a sharp-edged weapon, Lovepreet Singh with an iron rod, Matti (the petitioner herein) with an iron rod, Vishal with a baseball bat, Navi with a Kirch (sharp-edged weapon), Gurwinder Singh @Gaggu with a sharp-edged along with 5-6 unknown persons were present, and in the street they launched an attack upon Vikram and inflicted multiple injuries on his person. As per complainant on account of abovementioned injuries Vikram died in the hospital.

¶20

It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. Custody Certificate has been filed by learned State Counsel. 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.

¶21

Mr. Divyadeep Walia, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant and filed Power of Attorney. The same be taken on record.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The record has been perused carefully.

¶24

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

¶25

decision:-

¶26

i. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of one year four months and six days;

¶27

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.28 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-9002-2026 (O&M)

¶29

3

¶30

ii. that even in the examination-in-chief of complainant, recorded as PW-1, no role has been assigned to the petitioner, in the commission of crime;

¶31

iii. that the weapon attributed to the petitioner is steel-rod, but as per medical opinion the death of victim had taken place due to asphyxia;

¶32

iv. that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner;

¶33

v. that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to similarly placed co-accused;

¶34

vi. that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;

¶35

vii. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

¶36

viii. 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

ix. 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

¶39

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.28 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

CRM-M-9002-2026 (O&M)

¶41

4

¶42

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 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

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.28 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CRM-M-9002-2026 (O&M)

¶46

5

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

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 for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶50

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed . The petitioner is hereby ordered

¶51

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.28 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

CRM-M-9002-2026 (O&M)

¶53

6

¶54

to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession

¶55

shall be subject to following conditions:-

¶56

(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;

¶57

(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

¶58

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

¶59

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 28.04.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶60

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.28 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Matti Alias Mati Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matti Alias Mati 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

Abhishek Vs State of Haryana

Kartik Kung @ Kartik Vs State of Punjab

Satnam Singh @ Bunty Vs State of Punjab

Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amarjit Arora and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Pardeep Sharma @ Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana