CRM-M/26575/2026 of HARDEEP SINGH @ SURAJ Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 27 July 2026

1. This is the third petition instituted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No. 98 dated 16.07.2019, registered under Sections 302, 148, 149, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding to Sections 103, 191(3), 190, 351(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Bhagta Bhaika, District Bathinda. It is pertinent to note that the first bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.04.2025, while the second petition met the same fate on 27.03.2026.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case originates from the statement of the complainant, Raj Singh, son of Piara Singh, who alleged

-:2:- that two unidentified assailants fired gunshots at the deceased, Jagdeep Singh alias Happy, while he was seated on the driver's seat of his vehicle. The complainant further alleged that the occurrence was motivated by previous enmity between the deceased and Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi and Hardeep Singh alias Suraj, who had allegedly attacked the deceased on an earlier occasion and had subsequently extended threats to eliminate him. On the basis of the said allegations, the complainant expressed suspicion that the aforesaid persons had either themselves committed the murder or had orchestrated the crime through their associates, whereupon the present FIR came to be registered.

3. The custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail, contending that, having regard to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. It is, accordingly, prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have meticulously perused the paper book and the material available on record with their able assistance.

5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for approximately five years. It is further not in dispute that the complainant, who is also the father of the deceased, has entered the witness box and has not supported the prosecution case, having been

-:3:- declared hostile. Significantly, even as per the prosecution version set out in the FIR, no specific allegation has been attributed to the petitioner regarding his presence at the scene of occurrence, and the role ascribed to him is not that of a direct assailant.

5.1. Furthermore, the trial has progressed at a slow pace and is not likely to attain finality in the foreseeable future. Continued incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period would, therefore, amount to an unjustified deprivation of his fundamental right to a speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the petitioner's detention pending trial.

5.2. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- i. The petitioner(s) 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. ii. The petitioner(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall the petitioner(s), directly or indirectly, attempt to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

-:4:- iii. The petitioner(s) shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event any of the petitioner(s) is in possession of a passport, the particulars thereof shall be furnished before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. iv. Before accepting the bail and surety bonds, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/C.J.M. concerned shall obtain from the petitioner(s) the permanent residential address as well as the present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours of the acceptance of the bail bonds and place a verification report on record. In the event any 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. v. The petitioner(s) 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, the Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing 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 the concession of bail in accordance with law. vi. The petitioner(s) 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 of such change. vii. The petitioner(s) shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the

-:5:- learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. The petitioner(s) shall not absent from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions or 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 bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.

6. In view of the fact that the principal matter stands finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 27.07.2026

JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No