Balram Gill v. State Of Punjab

Prayer in the present petition f filed under Section 483 BNSS is for gran nt of regular bail to the petition ner in case FIR No.152 dated 23.10.2020, , registered under Sections 302 2, 307, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25 5 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 9, at Police Station C Division, District Pol ice Commissionerate Amritsar.

2.

Learned counsel contends th at the petitioner has been in custody for r the last 5 years, 1 month and 6 6 days. As per the allegations, the petition ner has been attributed simple in njury on the person of Manoj Kumar, whe ereas injury to Prince (since dec ceased) was at the hands of coaccused Ran ndeep. Further that, Avinash Ku umar @ Babu has been granted bail vide or rder, Annexure P-6. Recovery has also been planted on the petitioner.

Charges stand framed on 21.1 0.2020, however, 6 out of 48

PWs have been examined. He is involved in three other cases under IPC while one under the Prisons Act, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. 3.

The custody certificate dated 03.12.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 5 years, 1 month and 6 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having fired at Manoj, who received pellet injuries and he is a habitual offender. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; the petitioner being on bail in other case and the co-accused having been released on bail.

5.

Heard.

6.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc." Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, "The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several

criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail." 7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 5 years, 1 month and 6 days; on bail in other case; co-accused is on bail; charge were framed on 21.10.2020, but out of 48 PWs, only 6 stand examined as yet and the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed. 8.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial

Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court. (viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

9.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 10.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.