IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 06.02.2026 Pronounced on: 11.02.2026 Hawalati Harpreet Singh @ Happy ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Avtar Singh Khinda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNSS’ only, moved by the petitioner, who is in custody since 11.06.2021. The petitioner is facing trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’, and Section 52 of the Prison Act, 1894. The about trial pertains to FIR No.196 dated 06.06.2021, Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar. The petitioner is craving for bail.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being when ‘Bhagwant Singh’, Assistant Sub Inspector Central Jail, Fatehpur, Amritsar sent a communication to the police post Fatehpur, Police Station Islamabad, Amritsar. By virtue of above mentioned letter it was informed that ‘Avtar Singh @ Tari’ ‘Sultan Singh’, ‘Gurjant Singh’, ‘Harpreet Singh’, ‘Lakhwinder Singh’, ‘Sajandeep Singh’ and ‘Lovepreet Singh’ were lodged in Central Jail Amritsar, and that on 06.06.2021 role call of ‘Avtar Singh’, ‘Sultan Singh’, ‘Gurjant Singh’ and ‘Harpreet Singh’ was in Room No.1 of barrack No.5. It was further informed that the above named four prisoners along with unknown persons while going to room No.6 of barrack No.5, on account of old rivalry, attacked the under trial prisoners namely ‘Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha’, ‘Sajandeep Singh’ and ‘Lovepreet’ with iron sheets & cutter and that in the above mentioned attack ‘Lakhwinder’, ‘Sajandeep’ and ‘Lovepreet’ had suffered serious injuries. As per abovementioned information Assistant Superintendent ‘Bahadar Singh’

and Warder ‘Harjinder Singh’ had intervened and stopped the conflict.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above mentioned information initially the FIR was lodged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 52 of Prison Act and the investigation was taken up. As per prosecution during the course of investigation when injured ‘Lakhwinder Singh’ passed away the case was converted into a case for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that he has already suffered prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than 4 years, 7 months and 24 days. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire prosecution case is resting upon the testimony of injured, and eye-witness of the occurrence, namely ‘Sajandeep Singh’, who has already been examined as PW-9. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the above named witnesses with regard to involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime has not supported the prosecution case at all.

6. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contented that trial in the present case is taking place at a very slow pace as out of 28 only 8 witnesses have been examined so far, and one has been given up. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that 2/3rd of the witnesses mentioned in the list are yet to be examined, which shows that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. While praying for bail, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the present case the right of personal life & liberty, and also of speedy trial is being violated due to slow progress in trial. While relying upon the principle of law laid down by the Ho