Sukhchain Singh @ Chaina v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (227) CRM-M--2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.01.2026 SUKHCHAIN SINGH @ CHAINA ... Petitioner
Versus
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
**** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1.
The petitioner has filed 8th petition seeking indulgence of this Court for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.66 dated 25.02.2020 registered under Sections 379-B, 342, 459, 506 and 34 of IPC (Sections 379B and 34 of IPC were deleted and Sections 395, 460, 325, 411 and 201 of IPC were added later on) at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.
2.
As per the allegations, on the intervening night of 24/25.02.2020, 04 unknown youths had trespassed into the Dera wherein the victim Baba Mohinder Singh was residing, had assaulted him thereby causing injuries, snatched his cellphone and after taking away the money kept in the Dera, they had fled away. The victim had somehow informed his disciples who took him to hospital. During the course of investigation, one witness Kuldeep Singh recorded his statement that he
had seen the petitioner alongwith the co-accused while sitting in the Dera on 22.02.2020 and hatching a conspiracy to commit offence of dacoity somewhere. The petitioner was nominated as accused and was arrested. Recovery of an amount of Rs.12 lakhs was effected from his house on 29.09.2020. Subsequent recoveries were also effected from him. The co-accused were also arrested. The petitioner moved several applications for grant of bail and this is his 08th petition. 3.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been in prolonged incarceration for a period of more than 05 years and 10 months. There are bleak chances of conclusion of the trial even now since only 07 out of 25 witnesses have been examined. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. His prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The recovery is even otherwise false and planted one. PW-6 Mohinder Singh victim has not identified the petitioner as one of the culprits and has not supported the prosecution version qua involvement of the petitioner in the subject crime. The eye-witness Kuldeep has also not supported the prosecution version. The co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a ground for him to seek bail afresh. His previous petition had been dismissed about 10 months back. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4.
Per contra, learned State counsel has argued the petition is not maintainable as the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail has
already been declined by this Court by passing a detailed order on 27.03.2025. There has been no substantive change in the circumstances. No new ground is made out for allowing the petition. Taking into consideration the antecedents of the petitioner, the possibility that he may commit similar offences again cannot be ruled out. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5.
This Court has heard the rival submissions made by counsels for the parties at considerable length. 6.
The petitioner alongwith the co-accused is alleged to have committed the offence of lurking house trespass in the Dera of the victim-Mohinder Singh (PW6) and is alleged to have caused grievous injuries to him and looted an amount of Rs.1 crore 75 lakhs as kept in the Dera. The victim now stands examined and has not identified the petitioner as one of the culprits. The petitioner's incarceration is for a period of 05 years 10 months and 07 days as on date.
! "
#
$ #
$$
# % % $
#
& $ $
# #
&( ) "
%
$
$
%
% %
%
$ *
+ $ %$
#
$
&( ) "
!
$ #
$ $
$ $
%
$
"#$ %& '( ) #
*+!+
( ,- .
/0 )#1
,,
#
$ %
% $ % #
# %
# $ $ # ,- "
.
/ %*
$
#
05 years 10 months and 07 days $
0
"
$ #
# # %
%
"1"
2 # 13% # !
%
% $ %
$ $ % +
$
% $
% % $
$ "
%
5
# $
$
/1&/
45
$
$
/1&/
$
$ 4
%
#
$
$ 45 %
%
1$ # #
10.
It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
-- $
%
!" !# $%!&'()*+#!&$,)!-.
/!$+,
!" !# #!%,#"&01!.
/!$+,