CRM-M/49340/2026 of RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 10 September 2026

1. T under Section “BNSS”) for 24.06.2023 reg and 120B of I Police Station bearing No.C dated 03.12.20 T h K ca

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

UMAR SHARMA

Versus PUNJAB

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MA Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate fo Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Adv Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate fo *** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the second p n 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Sur grant of regular bail in case a gistered under Section 346 of IP IPC added later on and Section n Sirhind, District Fatehgarh CRM-M-48144-2024 was dismi 024 by making the following obs The petitioner is alleged to be a p atched by the accused Gurpreet Kaur to commit murder of the vi ase of accidental death of th B AND HARYANA AT H CRM-M-49340-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.09.2026

... Petitioner

...Respondent ANISHA BATRA for the petitioner vocate General, Punjab or the complainant petition filed by the petitioner raksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short arising out of FIR No.92 dated PC (Sections 302, 201, 148, 149 346 of IPC deleted later on) at Sahib. His previous petition ssed by this Court vide order servations :- part of the conspiracy which was t Singh and his wife Khushdeep ictim Sukhjit Singh to show it a he accused Gurpreet Singh by

r t d t n r s p a y AMIT SHARMA

p in n p th a p a n d n p co se a o p d

2. It suffered prolo The chances o out of 59 pro incarceration rojecting the dead body to be ntention to get money from the ame of the accused Gurpreet Sin etitioner are serious in nature. he persons present along with th t the time when the last rites erformed while showing the sam ccused Gurpreet Singh, who othing on record to suggest th delay in conclusion of the trial. T ature of the allegations as level rima facie suggest his complic ommit the said offences by th entence which the conviction ma nd circumstances but without m n the merit of the case, I am of etition does not deserve to be al dismissed. t is argued by learned counsel onged incarceration for a period o of conclusion of trial in the near osecution witnesses have been is not going to serve any fr that of Gurpreet Singh with an Insurance Policies taken in the ngh. The allegations against the He is also alleged to be one of he co-accused Khushdeep Kaur of the body of the victim were me to be the dead body of the co- was actually alive. There is hat there would be any undue Taking into the consideration the led against the petitioner which ity in hatching a conspiracy to he co-accused, the quantum of ay entail and the attendants facts meaning to make any comments f the considered opinion that the llowed. Accordingly, the same is l for the petitioner that he has of over 03 years and 02 months. future are still bleak as only 10 examined so far. His further ruitful purpose. He has been n e e f r e - s e e h o f s s e s s .

r n AMIT SHARMA

implicated in t actual assaila fundamental r The delay in c abide by the t by him in cust afresh. It is, th

3. P the complaina allegations as being a succes be given conce

4. T counsel for the

5. T hatched by the as a case of a from the Insur period of mor to take consid witnesses are maintainability this case on the allegations of pa ant. His prolonged incarc right guaranteed under Article 2 conclusion of the trial is not attr terms and conditions to be impo tody has furnished him a fresh re herefore, argued that he deserves Per contra, learned State counsel ant has argued that taking into c levelled against the petitioner ssive one is not maintainable, th ession of bail and the petition is This Court has heard the rival e parties. The petitioner is alleged to be a p e co-accused to commit the mur accidental death of accused Gu rance Company. The petitioner re than 03 years, 02 months and derable time to conclude as sub e still remained to be examin y of this petition is concerned, art of conspiracy and was not the eration militates against his 21 of the Constitution of India. ributable to him. He is ready to osed upon him. Each day spent eason to seek concession of bail s to be extended benefit of bail. l assisted by learned counsel for consideration the gravity of the r and the fact that this petition he petitioner does not deserve to liable to be dismissed. submissions made by learned part of the conspiracy which was rder of the victim and to show it urpreet Singh and to get money has suffered incarceration for a d 03 days. The trial is still likely bstantial number of prosecution ned. So far as question of undoubtedly it is a successive

e s . o t l r e n o d s t y a y n f e AMIT SHARMA

petition. The change in the equally well speedy trial is the Constituti Maharashtra observed that speedy trial. B that if the Stat no wherewitha have a speedy State or any o the ground tha applies irrespe object of bail proper test to should be gra appear to take punishment.

6. R Hon’ble Supre 2 SCC 565 to the accused at well-settled proposition of law e circumstances, the successive settled that deprivation of per s not in consonance with the rig on of India. In Javed Gulam and another 2024(9) SCC 813 howsoever, serious a crime ma Bail is not to be withheld as a pu te or any prosecuting agency inc al to provide or protect the fund y trial as enshrined under Article other prosecuting agency should at the crime committed, is seriou ective of the nature of the crime is to secure the attendance of be applied is in the solution of anted or refused or whether it e its trial and it is indisputable th Reliance can also be placed up eme Court in Gurbaksh Singh S o the effect that the object of ba t the trial and the proper test to b w is that if there is some drastic petition is maintainable. It is rsonal liberty without ensuring ght guaranteed by Article 21 of Nabi Shaikh vs The State of 3, the Hon’ble Apex Court had ay be, an accused has a right to unishment. It was also observed cluding the Court concerned has damental right of an accused to 21 of the Constitution, then the not oppose the plea for bail on us. Article 21 of the Constitution

e. It is also well-settled that the the accused at the trial and the the question is whether the bail is probable that the party will hat bail is not to be withheld as a pon the observations made by Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) ail is to secure the attendance of be applied in the solution of the

c s g f f d o d s o e n n e e l l a y ) f e AMIT SHARMA

question whet probable that the bail is not

7. S delay in concl Satender Kum had observed requires inter conclude with in the absence 05.07.2023. examined. Th attributable to petitioner in cu clean antecede this case, the p bail subject t satisfaction o Magistrate con

8. It not be constru case and shall ther the bail should be grante the party will appear to take its to be withheld as a punishment. So far as the question of prolong lusion of the trial is concerned, mar Antil v. Central Bureau of I that the provisions contained in r alia the accused to be enlarg hin specified period, would apply e of any specific provisions. Th Only 10 out of 59 prosecuti here is nothing on record to sho o him. Taking into considera ustody, the fact that trial is not l ents of the petitioner and the fac petition is allowed and the petitio to his furnishing personal as of the learned Chief Judicia ncerned. t is, however, clarified that the ued as an expression of opinion o not influence the outcome of the ed or refused or whether it is s trial and it is indisputable that ged incarceration and inordinate the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 Section 436A of Cr.P.C. which ged on bail if the trial is not y to under-trial prisoners as well he petitioner is in custody since on witnesses have since been ow that delay in any manner is ation the period spent by the ikely to be conclude shortly, the cts and circumstance peculiar to oner is ordered to be released on well as surety bonds to the al Magistrate/trial Court/Duty observations made above shall of this Court on the merits of the e trial in any manner.

s t e n h t l e n s e e o n e y l e AMIT SHARMA

9. S any, is rendere 10.09.2026 Amit Sharma

Since the main petition has been ed infructuous. (M Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No allowed, pending application, if MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

- Yes/No

f AMIT SHARMA