CRM-M/34698/2026 of JASPAL SINGH ALIAS KACHHU Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 3 September 2026

1. The present second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 124 dated 18.06.2021, under Sections 307, 341, 323, 506, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC (corresponding to Sections 109(1), 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 191(2), 190 and 61(2) of the BNS), registered at Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur, Punjab, during the pendency of the trial.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 17.06.2021, complainant Lovely Kumar was returning towards his house after paying obeisance at the shrine of Peer Baba Churangi Shah Ji, Sunam. At about 7:15 p.m., when he reached near the grocery shop of G.P.O. Satish, Jaspal Singh, Vishal Kumar and Karan Khan allegedly stopped him. Jaspal Singh was armed with an iron rod fitted with a pulley and a gandasa, Karan Khan was armed with the gandasa handed over by Jaspal Singh, and Vishal Kumar was armed with a sword. Jaspal Singh allegedly gave a blow with the rod fitted with pulley on the head of the complainant with an intention to kill him, causing him to fall down and bleed KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh profusely. Thereafter, Mehboob Khan, Salman Khan, Akram Khan, Golu Kumar and Daani Boxer allegedly joined the attack, armed with rods and sticks. Various accused persons allegedly inflicted injuries upon the complainant with their respective weapons, including blows on his knee, leg, neck, arm and hand. The complainant ultimately became unconscious and the accused persons allegedly fled from the spot after extending threats. The prosecution further alleges that the occurrence was committed pursuant to a previous dispute relating to pressure upon the complainant to compromise a case earlier registered against Fareed Khan and Ajay Bhatia. During investigation, the complainant made a supplementary statement on 12.08.2021 after being shown the CCTV footage of the occurrence. In the said statement, he clarified that Mehboob Khan, Vishal Kumar, Golu Khan and Akram Khan were not present at the time of occurrence and named Sorav Kumar, Shanti, Gobind Singh and Bharat Bhushan as the persons who were actually present and caused injuries. He further stated that Amrik Singh and Gurpreet Singh were also present and had abused and threatened him. On the basis of the supplementary statement, the said persons were also nominated as accused. As regards the present petitioner, the prosecution attributes to him a role in the occurrence and alleges that he participated in the attack wherein the complainant sustained injuries. The prosecution relies upon the ocular version, medical evidence and the material collected during investigation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 25.05.2022 passed in CRM-M-50254 of 2021 and had remained on bail thereafter. It is submitted that the petitioner’s subsequent non-appearance KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh before the learned Trial Court was not intentional, but was on account of the ill-health of his mother, and pursuant to the non-bailable warrants, the petitioner surrendered and was taken into custody. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not been attributed any injury of a grave nature and the injury attributed to him has been opined to be simple in nature. No weapon has been recovered from the petitioner. It is also submitted that all the other co-accused are already on bail and the petitioner, therefore, deserves the concession of bail on the ground of parity as well. It is further contended that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration after surrender and his continued detention would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial is likely to take considerable time. The petitioner undertakes to remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of hearing and to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has opposed the present petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and arise out of a murderous assault upon the complainant, the petitioner was duly identified and attributed a specific role in the occurrence and petitioner had earlier been granted bail by this Court but subsequently failed to appear before the learned Trial Court, resulting in issuance of non-bailable warrants and his eventual custody. It is argued that the petitioner’s previous conduct, therefore, does not entitle him to the concession of bail. KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

6. Be that as it may, the petitioner was earlier granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 25.05.2022 passed in CRM-M- 50254 of 2021 and remained on bail thereafter. His subsequent non- appearance before the learned Trial Court, as submitted, was on account of the ill-health of his mother, pursuant to which he surrendered and was taken into custody. The petitioner has thus already enjoyed the concession of bail for a considerable period. On merits, the injury attributed to the petitioner has been declared simple in nature and no weapon has been recovered from him. Further, all the co-accused are stated to be on bail. The petitioner is presently in custody and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Though his previous non-appearance is a relevant circumstance, the same can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate stringent conditions to secure his presence before the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.

7. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of hearing, unless his personal appearance is specifically exempted by the learned Trial Court. In case of any default in appearance without sufficient cause, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, including cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner, and further subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.

2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.

5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 03.09.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh