CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 231 CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.07.2026 Surinder Singh @Shinda ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Ajaypal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. 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. 2. This petition for bail is the second petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.157 dated 16.11.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ and Section 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana. The first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 21.12.2025. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 2

3. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Raj Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that on 15.11.2024 at about 07:00 pm, he was present in his grocery shop. As per complainant, ‘Surinder Singh @Shinda’ (the petitioner herein) came to their shop and hurled abuses to him and his wife. According to complainant, when he objected to the abovementioned behaviour of petitioner, he took out a revolver from the waistband of his trouser and fired two gunshots. As per complainant, one gunshot hit his right shoulder and another one the chest of his wife. 4. 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. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that he has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and eight months. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, investigation in this case is already complete and that the injured have already been discharged from the hospital. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail.

7. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, two gunshots were fired by the petitioner with the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 3 intention to kill the complainant and his wife, and that both of them had suffered gunshot injuries. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, all the witnesses have already been examined and they have supported the prosecution case. As per learned State Counsel, the case is fixed for awaiting the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and thus, instant case is a case, where this inference can be drawn that there is delay in trial. 8. The record has been perused carefully. 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 first petition was not decided on merits; ii) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year and eight months; iii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iv) that the injured have already been discharged from the hospital; v) that all the witnesses in this case have already been examined; vi) that the trial is held up due to delay in FSL report; vii) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

viii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 4 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 also 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 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”.

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 5 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 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”.

12. 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”. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 6 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 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.

14. 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. 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. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 7

16. However, before parting ways with this order, it shall not be out of place to mention here that as per record, the case property has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 16.06.2026, i.e. after a delay of more than one-and-a-half year from the date of incident. What to say of investigation, even the trial has reached at fag end and the case property is yet to be examined by FSL. Thus, the Senior Superintendent of Police Ludhiana is hereby directed to look into the matter and take appropriate disciplinary action against the erring official(s). (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 21.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 231 CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.07.2026 Surinder Singh @Shinda ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Ajaypal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. 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. 2. This petition for bail is the second petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.157 dated 16.11.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ and Section 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana. The first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 21.12.2025. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 2

3. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Raj Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that on 15.11.2024 at about 07:00 pm, he was present in his grocery shop. As per complainant, ‘Surinder Singh @Shinda’ (the petitioner herein) came to their shop and hurled abuses to him and his wife. According to complainant, when he objected to the abovementioned behaviour of petitioner, he took out a revolver from the waistband of his trouser and fired two gunshots. As per complainant, one gunshot hit his right shoulder and another one the chest of his wife. 4. 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. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that he has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and eight months. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, investigation in this case is already complete and that the injured have already been discharged from the hospital. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail.

7. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, two gunshots were fired by the petitioner with the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 3 intention to kill the complainant and his wife, and that both of them had suffered gunshot injuries. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, all the witnesses have already been examined and they have supported the prosecution case. As per learned State Counsel, the case is fixed for awaiting the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and thus, instant case is a case, where this inference can be drawn that there is delay in trial. 8. The record has been perused carefully. 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 first petition was not decided on merits; ii) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year and eight months; iii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iv) that the injured have already been discharged from the hospital; v) that all the witnesses in this case have already been examined; vi) that the trial is held up due to delay in FSL report; vii) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

viii) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 4 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 also 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 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”.

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 5 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 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”.

12. 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”. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 6 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 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.

14. 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. 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. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19758-2026 (O&M) 7

16. However, before parting ways with this order, it shall not be out of place to mention here that as per record, the case property has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 16.06.2026, i.e. after a delay of more than one-and-a-half year from the date of incident. What to say of investigation, even the trial has reached at fag end and the case property is yet to be examined by FSL. Thus, the Senior Superintendent of Police Ludhiana is hereby directed to look into the matter and take appropriate disciplinary action against the erring official(s). (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 21.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.22 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document