Jaskaran @ Bobby @ Daddu v. State Of Punjab

-1134+140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.67231 of 2025 Jaskaran @ Bobby @ Daddu ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ..... Respondents Chandan @ Chandi @ Chanden ..... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondents Date of Decision: 27.03.2026

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *****

Present:

Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-67231-2025.

Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-71876-2025.

Mr. K. D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab
***** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) 1.

By this order, I dispose of the above mentioned two petitions arising out of the same FIR.

2.

Both the petitions have been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR No.114, dated 23.10.2023, under Sections 302, 506, 148 and 149 IPC (Section 120-B

-2IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Bilga, District Jalandhar Rural.

3.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Mahinder Kaur. It was alleged that son of complainant, namely, Jagdeep Singh @ Jaggi, was 36 years of age and he was doing the business of farming/plumbing. It was alleged that on 19.10.2023, at about 05:00 P.M., the complainant was present at the house and in the meantime, Sajan @ Ghai and Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi came to her house. The complainant was alone at that time and thus, they threatened her and asked her to pacify her son, Jagdeep Singh, otherwise, they would teach him a lesson. It was alleged that on 22.10.2023, at about 08:30 P.M., the complainant came to know that some persons were given beatings to her son in the cremation ground.

The complainant along with Harjinder Singh @ Raja went to the cremation ground and saw that Chandan Kumar @ Chandi (petitioner in CRM-M-71876-2025) armed with a wooden baseball bat, Gurpreet @ Gopi armed with the wooden shaft of the spade, Sajan @ Ghai armed with the wooden stick, Jaskaran @ Bobby @ Daddu (petitioner in CRM-M-67231-2025) armed with wooden stick and Sahil @ Shelly was empty handed, gave beatings to her son. A friend of her son was trying to save him. It was alleged that Chandan Kumar @ Chandi gave a blow of wooden baseball bat to the son of complainant, which hit on his head and on account of the said blow, the son of complainant fell down.

-3sticks blows to the complainant. Sahil @ Shelly was kicking son of the complainant. Thereafter the accused fled away from the spot along with their respective weapons. The complainant along with Harjinder Singh @ Raja and Jagjit Singh @ Jaggi got admitted her son to the Manjit Hospital, Nurmahal for treatment, where the doctor declared him dead. Thus, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On the basis of the same, the FIR was registered. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Resultantly, both the petitioners were arrested on 26.10.2023. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioners approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar praying for the grant of bail.

However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar declined the bail applications filed by both the petitioners vide order dated 09.09.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court by way of filing the present petitions praying for the grant of regular bail.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended before this Court that the petitioners have been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. They have submitted that the alleged occurrence has taken place on 22.10.2023. They have submitted that FIR was registered on the statement of mother of the deceased, namely, Mahinder Kaur. They have submitted that at the inception of the FIR, the complainant was projected as the eye-witness to the occurrence. They have further submitted that the complainant, i.e. PW-1, while entering

-4the witness-box, in her examination in chief, has reiterated her allegations as made in the FIR, however, while cross-examining, she has deposed that on receiving the information, she reached the place of occurrence after her son, i.e. deceased, namely, Jagdeep Singh, had already suffered injuries, though he was alive but he was not in a position to talk. They have submitted that the case of prosecution is based on the eye-witness account, however, the eye-witness herself has demolished the case of the prosecution during her cross-examination. They have further argued that 02 more eye-witnesses were cited along with the complainant, namely, Harjinder Singh and Jagjit Singh, however, both have been given up by the prosecution before their examination.

They have submitted that from the facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the case of prosecution is virtually without any evidence against the petitioners. They have submitted that the petitioners are behind bars from last more than 21⁄2 years. They have submitted that the petitioners have never been involved in any other case of the similar nature and there are 02 cases regarding the jail offence, but they are on bail in those cases. They have submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioners deserve to be granted regular bail. 5.

Separate replies dated 25.03.2026 by way of an affidavit of Bharat Masih Ladhar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Phillaur, Jalandhar (Rural) on behalf of the respondent-State have been filed by learned State counsel today in the Court and the same are taken on record. Copies thereof have been supplied to learned respective counsel for the petitioners.

-56.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He has submitted that the case of prosecution is based on the eye-witness account. He has submitted that the complainant, who was the eye-witness, has supported the case of prosecution during the examination in chief, however, during the cross-examination, she has also deposed that the petitioners were already present at the place of occurrence when she arrived at the place of occurrence. He has submitted that the complainant has specifically denied the suggestions given regarding the petitioners having not cause any injury to her son. He has submitted that the prosecution has other evidence on the record where the complicity of the petitioners is duly proved.

He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 24 prosecution witnesses, 20 witnesses still remain to be examined. He has submitted that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of bail and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. He has produced custody certificates of both the petitioners today in the Court, which are taken on record. He has further submitted that the costs as imposed upon him vide order dated 12.02.2026 has already been deposited and the receipts of the same have already been attached with the replies filed today in the Court.

7.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 8.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the alleged occurrence has taken place on 22.10.2023. the FIR has been registered on the statement of mother of

-6deceased, namely, Mahinder Kaur. Though the case of the prosecution is based of the eye-witness account but the complainant during her crossexamination has deposed that she reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence had took place. There were 02 more eye-witnesses but they have been given up by the prosecution. It is apparent that the eyewitness already stands examined, however, there is no probability of the petitioners influencing the eye-witnesses. Custody certificates produced would show that the petitioners have suffered an incarceration of 02 years, 04 months and 27 days as on 27.03.2026. It further reflects that the petitioners are involved in jail offences, however, they have already undergone the same. Out of total 24 prosecution witnesses, 20 witnesses remain to be examined.

9.

This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The arguments and counter arguments as raised before this Court would be assessed by the learned trial Court on the appreciation of the evidences led by both the sides, however, keeping in view the custody of the petitioners and their antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Needless to say that every accused has the fundamental right of speedy trial. 10.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. National Investigation Agency, 2022(1) SCC 695 has held as under:

"Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not

-7be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. At the same time, timely delivery of justice is part of human rights and denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice." 11.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision dated 03.07.2024 in 'Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024', has held that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has the right to speedy trial under the Constitution of India. 12.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsels for the petitioners succeed in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioners.

13.

Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and all the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

14.

Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the cases.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 27.03.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No