Sandeep Singh @ Sunny Lahoria @ Sunny v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 Date of Uploading: 07.04.2026 Sandeep Singh @ Sunny Lahoria @ Sunny .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL ***** Present:- Mr. Jaswinder Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Sr. DAG, Punjab. SUMEET GOEL, J.(Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.52 dated 24.07.2020 under Sections 103, 238, 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC) registered at Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala.
2.
The case set up in the FIR in question is as follows:- "Statement of Sarwan Singh S/o Randhir Singh R/o Patti Ramu Ki, Dhilwan, Police Station Dhilwan District Kapurthala aged about 28 years, Mob 9501329032, stated that I am the resident of above said address, and used to do the agriculture work, today dated 24.07.2020 1 have gone to Mand River, Beas Dhilwan for grazing the cattle, when I reached near the bank of Mand Dhilwan River Beas, I noticed that the river one dead body of male person was floating in naked position, and regarding this I made a telephonic call to the circle president Harnek Singh owner of Aatta Chakki of my Mohalla, who came there along with police party and reached at river Beas Mand Dhilwan about 3.40 PM, and with the help of us the dead body was taken out from the river, and
-2checked the right arm the name was found engraved as Samit of the dead body, and his feet tied with the Parna (piece of cloth), and the other part of the Parna was tied with neck and both the hands were also tied, and his mouth and hairs of head were found burnt, and both hands were also burned, and the upper part of the body was also found burnt, and the tongue was found between the teeth, and the injuries were visible on the body and back side, and his t-shirt was found around his neck in the burnt condition, and his age was seems to be 30-32 years old.
and the height is about 5feet 6 inch, and after seeing the abovesaid dead person was set on fire to hide his identity, and after tying the hands and feet the attempt has been made to dislocate the dead body by throwing the same in Beas River, and the appropriate legal action be taken against the accused persons, the statement has been recorded, and same has been heard, which is correct Sd/- Sarwan Singh Sd/-Harnek Singh S/o Jagir Singh R/o Dhilwan Mobile No. 84378-01313, attested by Harjinder Singh SI Police Station Dhilwan, dated 24.07.2020." 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2023. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is in the shape of a disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Gurdeep Singh (who had been extended concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-62201-2022). Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 years and 04 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has submitted that earlier the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender and, thus, there is all the likelihood that he may flee from the process of justice. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 06.04.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
-35.
I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6.
The petitioner was arrested on 25.11.2023, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the Challan was presented on 04.11.2023. Total 43 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and out of which one has been examined till date. It is not in dispute that the conclusion of trial will take long time. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to the dictapassed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, relevant whereof reads thus:
"18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime." 6.1.
The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it
-4may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.2.
As per the custody certificate dated 06.04.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 02 years, 04 months and 09 days & is shown to be involved in other cases/FIRs. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inMaulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.
In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following
-5conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/ complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9.
Ordered accordingly.
10.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL) April 07, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No