AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)SUMEET GOEL
CRM---11654-11654--2026
Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the record, the application in hand is allowed. Delay of 327 daysallowed in filing the appeal is condoned.
Main case (O&M)Main case (O&M)
Present 3rd appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’) for setting aside of the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, and further for grant of regular bail to the appellant in case bearing FIR No.103 dated 04.08.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 341, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Sections 302, 325, 120-B & 201 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act added later on], at Police Station Sadar Sangrur, District Sangrur.
The FIR in question pertains to murder of one Sikander Singh.
Learned counsel for the appellant has iterated that the appellant is in custody since 05.08.2023. Learned counsel has further iterated that the appellant has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that though this is the third attempt by the appellant to seek regular bail, but the fact remains that the appellant has already suffered incarceration for more than 03 years. Learned counsel has urged that the FIR-complainant (sole eye witness as well) has turned hostile and his testimony has been brought forth on record as Annexure P-7 with the main appeal. Learned counsel has further urged that prime prosecution witnesses already stand recorded and, thus, the appellant is not in a position to influence the trial/ witnesses. Learned counsel has also urged that the appellant is a man aged 60 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present appeal by arguing that the allegations raised against the appellant are serious in nature and thus the appellant does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 15.09.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the complainant has sought to raise submissions, but when a specific query was put to him as to when the said FIR-complainant has turned hostile before the concerned trial Court, then what is the cause with him to oppose the present appeal, no clear answer is forthcoming.
I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
The appellant was arrested on 05.08.2023, whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua the appellant has been presented on 30.10.2023 and charges were framed on 12.04.2024. Out of total cited 40 prosecution witnesses, 09 have been examined whereas 09 have been given up till date. It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long time.
At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus:
“18.Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
19.If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
20.We may hasten to add that the appellant is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
21.We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the nature of the case, the sole eye witness/ FIR-complainant having been turned hostile before the concerned Court and the appellant being in custody for more than 03 years; this Court is inclined to afford regular bail to the appellant.
The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the appellant absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
As per custody certificate dated 15.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the appellant has already suffered incarceration for a period of 03 years, 01 month & 07 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the appellant is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the appellant in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Indubitably, the present petition is the 3rd attempt by the appellant to secure regular bail. The last bail plea was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.09.2025; relevant whereof reads thus:
“1.Present appeal under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC & ST Act’) has been filed for grant of regular bail to the appellant in case FIR No.103 dated 4.8.2023, under Sections 307, 323, 341, 148 and 149 of IPC (Sections 302, 325, 120-B and 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Sangrur, District Sangrur.
2.Learned counsel for the appellant, after arguing for some time, seeks to withdraw the appeal in hand at this stage. He has, however, submitted that the trial proceedings be expedited.
3.The main appeal is accordingly directed to be dismissed as withdrawn.
4.Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
5.Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial proceedings and record the testimony of the prime witnesses, preferably, within 6 months from the date of receipt/production of certified copy of this order.”
Keeping in view the entirety of the factual matrix of the case in hand; especially, the extended incarceration of the petitioner & glacial pace of trial which is inter alia reflectable from the zimni orders dated 18.09.2025, 20.10.2025, 27.11.2025, 22.12.2025, 28.01.2026, 29.01.2026 & 30.01.2026; this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRACRACRA---SSS---2332-2332--20232023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under:
“10.As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:
I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.
II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.
III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.
IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s).
V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.”
Suffice to say, further detention of the appellant as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of above, the present appeal is allowedallowed. Appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the appellant shall remain bound by the following conditions:
The appellant shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
The appellant shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
The appellant shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
The appellant shall not commit any offence while on bail.
The appellant shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
The appellant shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
The appellant shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the appellant.
Ordered accordingly.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.