IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 Honey @ Kakera ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amritpal Singh, DAG, Punjab.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.183 dated 16.09.2023 registered under Sections 302 and 120-B of the IPC, at Police Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda. 2. Brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that the petitioner in connivance with other accused murdered Akash (son of the complainant), due to some altercation between them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the petitioner has been wrongly named in the FIR. He further argued that the investigation done by the police is tainted and even the test identification parade was not conducted by the police. He argued that even if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner. He further argued that the petitioner was empty handed at the time of commission of offence. Further, co-accused Maneet @ money has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 26.09.2024. The petitioner is in custody since 21.12.2023. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed. He further submits that there are total 17 prosecution witnesses and out of them, only 02 have been examined till date and as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, he has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and he has actively participated in the crime. He further argued that the petitioner was identified by the complainant before the trial Court. He further submitted that the petitioner is involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 years and 01 month; investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been framed; out of 17 witnesses, only 02 have been examined till date; the complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial, the trial is proceeding at snail’s pace and the same will take a long time to conclude. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of her right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

7. The foundational concept of the criminal jurisprudence is to ensure speedy trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting wit