CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 224 CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 20.07.2026 Gurpreet Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Harvinder Singh Maan, Advocate for the petitioner. . ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral) 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.91 dated 07.08.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 333, 109, 118(1), 351(2), 61(2), 191(3), 190 and 118(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 Police Station Bareta, District Mansa. 2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Ravi Sharma’ hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the abovenamed complainant that on 06.08.2025 at about 05:30 P.M.,10-12 persons armed with various weapons including sharp-edged weapons entered his plot by breaking open its gate and then launched an assault upon him and inflicted injuries on his person. As per complainant the petitioner was one of the abovementioned assailants, who was carrying a chopper (gandasa) in his hand and he inflicted three injuries on the person of VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.20 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) 2

complainant, i.e. one on the foot & two on left arm. As per complainant total eleven injuries had been suffered by him. 3. 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. Status report has already been filed by learned State Counsel. Custody Certificate of the petitioner has been filed today. Both of them be taken on record. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is already in custody for a period of seven months and seventeen days and that similarly placed co-accused have already been granted the benefit of bail. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that any of the injury attributed to the petitioner was not on vital part of the body of complainant and that the complainant has already been discharged from the hospital. 7. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the petitioner has a coloured history, as he is facing prosecution in eight other cases also, in addition to the present case. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that the direct role has been attributed to the petitioner who was armed with a sharp-edged weapon at the time of commission of offence. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that there is no delay in trial and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail.

8. The record has been perused carefully. VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.20 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) 3 9. 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 seven months and seventeen days; ii. that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to similarly placed co-accused; iii. that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; iv. that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of twenty one prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined so far; v. that any of the injury attributed to the petitioner was not on vital party of the body; vi. that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital; vii. that the weapon of offence has not been recovered from the possession of petitioner; viii. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; ix. 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 x. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

10. 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, VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.20 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) 4

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 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”.

11. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investiga-tion 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 VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.20 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) 5 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”.

12. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhat-tisgarh’, 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 ac-cused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credi-bility 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”. 13. 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 In-dia. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and An-other”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.20 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) 6

14. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, in-volved 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 peti-tion deserves to be allowed. 15. 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. (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 20.07.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.20 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 224 CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 20.07.2026 Gurpreet Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Harvinder Singh Maan, Advocate for the petitioner. . ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral) 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.91 dated 07.08.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 333, 109, 118(1), 351(2), 61(2), 191(3), 190 and 118(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 Police Station Bareta, District Mansa. 2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Ravi Sharma’ hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the abovenamed complainant that on 06.08.2025 at about 05:30 P.M.,10-12 persons armed with various weapons including sharp-edged weapons entered his plot by breaking open its gate and then launched an assault upon him and inflicted injuries on his person. As per complainant the petitioner was one of the abovementioned assailants, who was carrying a chopper (gandasa) in his hand and he inflicted three injuries on the person of VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.20 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) 2

complainant, i.e. one on the foot & two on left arm. As per complainant total eleven injuries had been suffered by him. 3. 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. Status report has already been filed by learned State Counsel. Custody Certificate of the petitioner has been filed today. Both of them be taken on record. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is already in custody for a period of seven months and seventeen days and that similarly placed co-accused have already been granted the benefit of bail. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that any of the injury attributed to the petitioner was not on vital part of the body of complainant and that the complainant has already been discharged from the hospital. 7. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the petitioner has a coloured history, as he is facing prosecution in eight other cases also, in addition to the present case. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that the direct role has been attributed to the petitioner who was armed with a sharp-edged weapon at the time of commission of offence. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that there is no delay in trial and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail.

8. The record has been perused carefully. VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.20 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) 3 9. 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 seven months and seventeen days; ii. that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to similarly placed co-accused; iii. that the investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; iv. that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of twenty one prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined so far; v. that any of the injury attributed to the petitioner was not on vital party of the body; vi. that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital; vii. that the weapon of offence has not been recovered from the possession of petitioner; viii. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; ix. 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 x. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

10. 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, VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.20 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) 4

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 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”.

11. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investiga-tion 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 VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.20 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) 5 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”.

12. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhat-tisgarh’, 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 ac-cused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credi-bility 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”. 13. 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 In-dia. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and An-other”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.20 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29621-2026 (O&M) 6

14. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, in-volved 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 peti-tion deserves to be allowed. 15. 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. (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 20.07.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.20 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document