IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:16.02.2026 Rubal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed for quashing the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby order dated 27.10.2023 dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, has been confimed by leanred Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Amritsar in case FIR No.275 dated 01.09.2021, registered under Sections 302, 323, 324, 427, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Ajnala, Amritsar.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, who was 17 years and 1 month old as on the date of occurrence, has been in custody for 04 years and about 05 months and was declared child-in-conflict vide order dated 19.10.2023. His name surfaced based on supplementary statement of the complainant after 04 days. 09 out of 14, who were specifically named as accused, were declared innocent, but thereafter challan was presented against them also, as the report was not approved by the higher officer. Anticipatory bail has been granted to five of the said accused by this Court vide orders Annexures P-2 to P-8. Challan has been presented on 01.12.2021. He refers to para 18 of the status report dated 11.01.2026 filed by way of an affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Ajnala, Amritsar (Rural), wherein it has been mentioned that charges have yet not been framed against the petitioner. In all there are 43 prosecution witnesses. He is involved in two more cases, wherein he is not on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382

3. The custody certificate dated 15.02.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 04 years, 04 months and 29 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there were specific allegations against the petitioner of having given fatal blow to the deceased and the krich stands recovered from. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the trial and co-accused enlarged on bail.

5. Heard.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (supra) had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.”

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for 04 years, 04 months and 29 days; co-accused are on bail; challan was presented on 01.12.2021, but charges are to be framed; there are a total of 43 prosecution witnesses, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar as well as order dated 27.10.2023 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Amritsar, are set aside.

8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear befo