Jaspreet Singh Alias Valley v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 Jaspreet Singh alias Valley ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present:

Mr. S.K.Liberhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1.

This petition for bail is 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. 13 dated 25.01.2022, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 302, 323, 324 and 120-B of 'the Indian Penal Code, 1860' Police Station Balongi, District S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, Punjab.

2.

The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'Sanjay Kumar', hereinafter being referred to as "complainant" only. It was stated by the above named complainant that his brother 'Lal Rattan' and 'Anil Kumar' were Auto-rickshaw drivers and that about ten days ago they had a quarrel with each other but later on their relationship normalized. According to complainant on 24.01.2022 at about 09.00/09.30 P.M. his brother 'Lal

Rattan' and 'Anil Kumar both were waiting for passengers near Vegetable Market, and he (complainant) left the above-mentioned spot in his own autorickshaw. The complainant further stated that later on he came to know that his brother had been killed by stabbing.

3.

It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned statement, 'Anil Kumar' was arrested, as an accused but later on, on investigation it was revealed that five persons had attacked 'Lal Rattan', the deceased, in the presence of 'Anil Kumar' and 'Sonu', and inflicted injuries on his person. According to prosecution, in view of above-mentioned information, video footage captured by a CCTV camera was collected and that subsequently the complainant made another statement, disclosing therein the names of assailants as 'Ravi Kumar, 'Satnam Singh alias Bobby', 'Monu', 'Velly' (petitioner herein) and 'Ompreet Singh alias Sidhu alias Saurav'. According to prosecution in view of the above-mentioned statement further investigation was conducted and the accused were arrested. 4.

Heard.

5.

The record has been perused carefully.

6.

A careful perusal of the record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are necessary to be taken into consideration for a decision:- i) that the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than four years;

ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;

iii) that the name of petitioner does not figure in the FIR; iv) that subsequently the name of petitioner came into

picture on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant. However, the complainant is not an eyewitness in this case; v) that the complainant has already been examined as PW.4 and in his testimony he has not supported the prosecution case with regard to involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime;

vi) that the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, i.e. 'Anil Kumar' and 'Sonu' have already been examined as PW.1 and PW.2, respectively, and both of them have not supported the prosecution case.

vii) that trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future;

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

ix) that further detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to produce a fruitful result;

x) that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and xi) that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation.

7.

With regard to the legal aspect involved in the instant case, it is relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

'Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another' (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 22, has 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."

8.

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation' (2022) 10 Supreme Court Cases 51, are also relevant in this case. In the above mentioned 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." 9.

Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 above mentioned 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." 10.

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.

11.

If the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors, in-

volved 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.

12.

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 above said concession shall be subject to following conditions:- a) 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;

b) 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 conclusion of trial; and c) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

(Surya Partap Singh) Judge February 25, 2026 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No