CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 237 CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 06.07.2026 Harpreet Singh @Happy ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Gagandeep Singh Simble, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. 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.48 dated 07.03.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 308(4), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station City Batala, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. 2. The abovementioned FIR has come into being at the instance of ‘Kirandeep Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It has been stated by the above-named complainant that on 06.03.2026, when he closed his lab at around 08:00 pm, the following morning he received a WhatsApp video clip from an international No.+15108687265, showing an unknown individual firing gunshots at his lab. According to complainant, he reached his lab and found two bullet holes embedded in the shutter of his lab. The complainant further stated that he had previously received an GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) 2

international call demanding for ransom, which he did not pay. As per complainant, he received further threats, warning him that he would be killed if the extortion money was not paid. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation, it has been found that the petitioner along with his co-accused fired the gunshots at the complainant’s lab, due to his failure to pay the demanded ransom. 4. The learned State Counsel has filed short reply as well as custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. 5. Heard. 6. The record has been perused carefully. 7. 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:- i. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than three months and fourteen days; ii. that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to co-accused ‘Amandeep Singh @Armaandeep Singh’ by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Gurdaspur, vide order dated 03.06.2026; iii. that the investigation in this case is already complete as the challan has already been filed. Therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) 3

iv. the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; v. that detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose vi. 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 vii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate 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 “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 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) 4

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”. 9. 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”.

10. 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) 5 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”. 11. 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.

12. 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. 13. 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 satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (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; GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) 6 (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 (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 06.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 237 CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 06.07.2026 Harpreet Singh @Happy ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Gagandeep Singh Simble, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. 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.48 dated 07.03.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 308(4), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station City Batala, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. 2. The abovementioned FIR has come into being at the instance of ‘Kirandeep Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It has been stated by the above-named complainant that on 06.03.2026, when he closed his lab at around 08:00 pm, the following morning he received a WhatsApp video clip from an international No.+15108687265, showing an unknown individual firing gunshots at his lab. According to complainant, he reached his lab and found two bullet holes embedded in the shutter of his lab. The complainant further stated that he had previously received an GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) 2

international call demanding for ransom, which he did not pay. As per complainant, he received further threats, warning him that he would be killed if the extortion money was not paid. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation, it has been found that the petitioner along with his co-accused fired the gunshots at the complainant’s lab, due to his failure to pay the demanded ransom. 4. The learned State Counsel has filed short reply as well as custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. 5. Heard. 6. The record has been perused carefully. 7. 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:- i. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than three months and fourteen days; ii. that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to co-accused ‘Amandeep Singh @Armaandeep Singh’ by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Gurdaspur, vide order dated 03.06.2026; iii. that the investigation in this case is already complete as the challan has already been filed. Therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) 3

iv. the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; v. that detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose vi. 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 vii. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate 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 “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 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) 4

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”. 9. 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”.

10. 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) 5 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”. 11. 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.

12. 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. 13. 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 satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (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; GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26815-2026 (O&M) 6 (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 (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 06.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.07 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document