IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 21.05.2026 Satinder Singh @ Sunny ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, 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.06 dated 09.01.2024 registered under Sections 379- B, 307 and 34 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar.

2. Brief facts as per the case of the prosecution are that the petitioner along with co-accused snatched the car and the cash lying in the car of the complainant, fired gunshots towards him with an intention to kill him and fled away from the spot. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 09.01.2024 at about 4.00 am but the FIR in question was registered on 09.01.2024 at 5.25 pm i.e. after a delay of more than 12 hours, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific injury has been attributed to the present petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner was intentionally roped in the FIR only on the basis of suspicion without any concrete evidence. He further argued that Section 307 of IPC has been added by the prosecution only to make the offence graver. No recovery is to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 09.01.2024. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed. He further submitted that there are total 19 prosecution witnesses and out of which, only 07 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 filed the custody certificate of the petitioner and status report in the matter, which are taken on record and while referring to the status report, she has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. She has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in 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 04 months; investigation in the FIR is complete; challan stands presented; charges framed; out of 19 prosecution witnesses, 07 have been examined till date; the complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial; which is proceeding at snail’s pace, and 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 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 the 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 his 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