Ramanand Alias Kala v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 15.01.2026 Ramanand @Kala ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

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

Mr. Ishan Gupta and Mr. Anterpreet Singh, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) 1.

For the commission of offence punishable under Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act, the FIR No.330 dated 04.11.2024 has been lodged in Police Station Division No.7, District Ludhiana. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the commission of abovementioned offence and he has been arrested. The petitioner is in custody and, therefore, craving for bail.

2.

In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'Harinderpal', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated by above-named complainant that on the occasion of Diwali festival, he and his neighbours had installed decorative lights at their residences, where there were repeated incidents of theft of abovesaid lights. As per complainant, in view of abovementioned

incidents, all the residents of locality were alert and that on one occasion with the help of CCTV footage, they red-handed caught a person committing theft of decorative lights. According to complainant, he along with his brother Prince Kumar and uncle Jaggu managed to apprehend the abovementioned person, but he took out a pistol from the bag and fired a gun-shot, which hit his brother Prince Kumar. 3.

It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, the FIR of this case was lodged, and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation, the petitioner was identified and arrested, and thereafter, further formalities of investigation were completed.

4.

The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record.

5.

Heard.

6.

It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case the injured and eyewitness have already been examined during the course of investigation and they have not supported the prosecution case with regard to identity of the petitioner as the assailant.

7.

The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, there is direct evidence against the petitioner, which is sufficient to prove his involvement in the commission of crime. As per learned State Counsel, the

offence committed by the petitioner is grievous in nature, and that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for benefit of bail.

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 the decision: - i) that as per custody certificate, the petitioner is already in custody for a period of almost 11 months;

ii) that the statement of injured and eye-witness has already been recorded and they have not supported the prosecution case with regard to identity of petitioner as an assailant; iii) that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital; iv) that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

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

vi) 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 vii) 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 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".

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".

13.

Therefore, 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 for 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 his furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, subject to the 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 , 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 15.01.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No