Chaksu Jaryal vs State Of Punjab

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in FIR No. 88 dated 16.05.2023, registered under Sections 307, 341, 323, 324, 382, 427, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding to Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 118, 307, 324(4), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, to which Section 302 IPC (corresponding to Section 103 BNSS, 2023) has subsequently been added vide DDR No. 62 dated 16.05.2023.

As per the prosecution version, on 15.05.2023 at about 9:30 PM, complainant Paras Anand was present at Bus Stand Bhangala when his younger brother Gaurav Anand, along with his friends Tushar Sharma and Ritik, reached there in Alto car No. PB-03-BE-1346. At that time, the petitioner Chaksu, armed with a takua, along with co-accused Akash @ Ghogga armed with an iron rod, Suraj armed with a sword, Nikhil armed with a dang and three unknown persons carrying dangs, allegedly stopped the car. Co-accused Nikhil is stated to have struck the rear windscreen of the car with a dang, breaking the same. Thereafter, when Gaurav Anand and his companions came out of the car, co-accused Suraj allegedly raised a lalkara to catch hold of Gaurav, whereupon the petitioner Chaksu allegedly inflicted repeated takua blows upon Gaurav with an intention to kill him, one of which struck the back of his head, causing him to fall down. The other accused persons thereafter allegedly inflicted blows upon Gaurav with their respective weapons. The injured was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Mukerian and thereafter referred to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh for further treatment. During treatment, Gaurav Anand succumbed to his injuries, whereafter Section 302 IPC was added to the FIR. The prosecution further relies upon the statements of the complainant and the alleged eyewitnesses, namely Tushar Sharma and Ritik, as well as the medical and other investigation material collected during the course of investigation. The petitioner was arrested on 24.05.2023. The final report was presented on 16.08.2023, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 28.08.2023, and charges under Sections 302, 307, 341, 323, 324, 382, 427, 148 and 149 IPC were framed on 06.06.2024. The prosecution has cited 28 witnesses in support of its case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.05.2023 and has thus undergone more than three years of incarceration as an under-trial. The investigation already stands completed and the final report has been presented. Charges were framed on 06.06.2024; however, out of 28 prosecution witnesses, only three have been examined and one witness has been partly examined, while one witness has been given up. Thus, 24 witnesses still remain to be examined and the trial is likely to take considerable time.

It is further submitted that the prosecution case, particularly the role attributed to the petitioner, is rendered doubtful from the evidence already brought on record. The complainant Paras Anand, while appearing as PW-1, has admitted that there was no prior enmity or litigation between the parties. His testimony also does not remain consistent with the version contained in the FIR when confronted with the CCTV footage of the occurrence. It is submitted that the presence of the complainant at the spot itself has become doubtful.

Learned counsel further submits that the CCTV footage, as noticed during the deposition of PW-3 ASI Sushil Singh, does not corroborate the manner of occurrence narrated by the complainant and another alleged eyewitness. Rather, the said witness stated that the deceased and his companion were seen to have first attacked the accused persons. Thus, the question whether the deceased party were the aggressors and whether the occurrence was pre-planned or arose out of an altercation is a matter to be determined at trial.

It is also submitted that the complainant's interview to the press on 16.05.2023 did not name the petitioner and, instead, referred to Ritik and Sunny and sought action against them. Further, the FIR itself was registered after a delay of about 23 hours. It is argued that the alleged eyewitnesses have not specifically attributed individual injuries to particular accused persons, whereas the post-mortem report attributes the cause of death to a head injury/cerebral haemorrhage. Consequently, at this stage, the precise attribution of the fatal injury cannot be conclusively determined.

Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has not collected the call-tower location records of the accused and no forensic examination of the CCTV footage regarding the identity of the persons appearing therein was obtained. It is also pointed out that PW-3 has stated that there was no previous dispute between the petitioner and the complainant party.

Lastly, learned counsel submits that similarly situated co-accused Sahil Kumar @ Nikhil and Akash Jaryal @ Ghogga have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.11.2025 and 31.08.2026, respectively. The petitioner is not involved in any other case, undertakes not to misuse the concession of bail and to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when a substantial part of the prosecution evidence is still to be recorded.

Notice of motion.

Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 16.09.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 03 years 03 months and 21 days.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for regular bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is attributed the role of having inflicted repeated blows with a takua on the deceased Gaurav Anand, including a blow which struck the back of his head. The occurrence was allegedly committed by the petitioner along with his co-accused, who were armed with deadly weapons, pursuant to which the victim sustained serious injuries and subsequently succumbed during treatment. Consequently, Section 302 IPC was added to the FIR.

On consideration of the rival submissions and the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.05.2023. The investigation stands concluded, the final report has been presented and charges were framed on 06.06.2024. Out of 28 prosecution witnesses, only three witnesses have been examined and one has been partly examined, while one witness has been given up; thus, a substantial part of the prosecution evidence is still to be recorded.

At this stage, the testimony already recorded also indicates that the manner of occurrence narrated in the FIR is not wholly consonant with the CCTV footage, and PW-3 ASI Sushil Singh has stated that the occurrence depicted in the CCTV footage was not in consonance with the version narrated by the complainant and another eyewitness. The complainant has also stated that there was no prior enmity or litigation between the parties. These aspects, as well as the precise attribution of the fatal injury, are matters to be tested during trial and need not be conclusively determined at this stage.

As regards parity, co-accused Sahil Kumar @ Nikhil has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2025 in CRM-M-2305 of 2025, while another co-accused, namely Akash Jaryal @ Ghogga, has been granted regular bail vide order dated 31.08.2026 in CRM-M-9452 of 2026. The petitioner is also stated to have no other criminal case against him. Though the role attributed to the petitioner is required to be considered independently, the grant of bail to the aforesaid co-accused is a relevant circumstance, particularly when the trial is likely to take considerable time and the petitioner has already undergone more than three years of custody.

Be that as it may, keeping in view the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, the stage of the trial, the fact that the investigation stands concluded, the evidence already recorded and the principle of parity with the co-accused who have been granted bail, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner as an under-trial is not warranted at this stage.

Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-

The petitioner 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.

The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either 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.

The petitioner 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, 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 bail in accordance with law.

The petitioner 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 from the date of such change.

The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his 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 regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.