Rajan Singh And Another v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Decided on : 08.04.2026 Rajan Singh & Anr.

..... Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present:

Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral) This petition is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioners under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita', 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.34 dated 05.02.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 310(4), 310(5), 317(2) of BNS, 2023 & Section 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Fazilka.

2.

The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'ASI Radhey Sham' who had reported that on 05.02.2026, when he was leading a team of police officials, he received a tip-off from a reliable source that Bobby Singh, Raj Kumar @Rajan, Karan Singh, Rajan Singh (the petitioner No.1 herein) and Jaswinder Singh @Jassi (the petitioner No.2 herein) had formed a gang and that they had gathered near the Semnala bridge on FF Road. As per information they were armed with weapons and were planning to commit dacoity. According to abovementioned report in view of abovementioned

information, the raid was conducted and all the abovenamed five persons were apprehended.

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. Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. Custody Certificates have 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. 6.

Heard.

7.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have already suffered incarceration for a period of almost two months and that they have clean antecedents. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that a false case has been lodged against the petitioners without any evidence, and that in the instant case there is not even an allegation qua the fact that anybody had overheard the petitioners, when they were planning the commission of any offence like dacoity. 8.

The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel from the possession of petitioner No.1-Rajan Singh sword has been recovered and from the possession of petitioner No.2-Jaswinder Singh @Jassi a Kappa (sharp-edged weapon). According to learned State Counsel in view of gravity of offence, the petitioners are not entitled for bail.

9.

The record has been perused carefully.

10.

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 petitioners are already in custody for a period of almost two months;

ii.

that in the instant case the allegations against the petitioners are that they were planning to commit dacoity, but there is no allegation qua the fact that such planning was overheard by the investigating officer or anybody else. Thus, there is a serious question mark with regard to claim of the prosecution that the petitioner were planning a dacoity. iii.

that in view of abovementioned fact-situation, the only allegation against the petitioners are for being in possession of stolen motorcycle;

iv.

that the abovementioned offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and the maximum punishment prescribed for the abovesaid offence is imprisonment up to three years;

v.

that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

vi.

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

vii.

that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioners may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and viii.

that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 11.

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 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".

12.

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".

13.

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".

14.

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.

15.

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.

16.

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 08.04.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No