Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh @ Sonu @ Bhoot vs State Of Punjab on 8 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116 CRA
CRA-S-3369-2025(O&M)
Date of Decision:08.12.2025
Jagtar Singh @ Sonu @ Bhoot .....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
Present: Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Kainth, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ , J.(Oral)
CRM-43437-2025 2025 The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 528 BNSS, seeking condonation of delay of 3525 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
Learned counsel for the applicant applicant-appellant contends that the appellant has been convicted in FIR No.111 dated 25.07.2012 under Sections 20 of the NDPS Act, 382, 411, 414 if the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station 'C' Division, Amritsar vide judgment judgm dated 05.01.2016 and was sentenced by an order of even date as under:-
under:
Sr.No. Under Section Sentence
1. 20 of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of2½ years and to pay
fine of Rs.2500/-and in default
of payment of fine, rigorous
imprisonment for a further
period of two months.
2. 25 of the Arms Act Rigorous imprisonment for a
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2025.12.15 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-3369-2025(O&M) 2
period of1½ years and to pay
fine of Rs.1500/-and in default
of payment of fine, rigorous
imprisonment for a further
period of one month.
3. 411 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of1 year and to pay fine
of Rs.1000/-and in default of
payment of fine, rigorous
imprisonment for a further
period of 15 days.
Learned counsel contends that the applicant-appellant is a poor person with responsibility of maintaining his family, including his aged mother and his financial distress was aggravated due to his prolonged custodial detention. The appellant was already in custody in relation to FIR No. 31 dated 14.03.2013, registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 411 of the IPC at Police Station Division-E, Amritsar, in which he was convicted and sentenced, vide judgment dated 25.11.2014, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. Counsel submits that, there being no other male member in the family, the responsibility of filing the appeal was entrusted by the appellant to his elderly mother; however, owing to the family's limited financial means and her inability to comprehend or pursue legal proceedings, no appeal could be filed. Since, the appellant himself was behind bars, he was also not in a position to avail his legal remedy. It is in these compelling circumstances that the present application has been filed seeking condonation of a delay of 3525 days.
Notice in the application.
Counsel for the State is not in a serious position to dispute the circumstances pointed out by the appellant.
Taking into consideration the submissions advanced as well as SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.15 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3369-2025(O&M) 3 the reasons assigned in the application and considering that the applicant was actually in custody all this while and did not have any resources at his command to pursue his remedies, the same is allowed and the delay of 3525 days' in filing the accompanying appeal, is hereby condoned. CRA-S-3369-2025(O&M) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.01.2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Judge, Special Court, Amritsar, in Sessions Case No.94/24555 of 05.07.2013 arising out of FIR No.111 dated 25.07.2012 under Sections 20 of the NDPS Act, 382, 411, 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station "C" Division, Amritsar vide order dated 05.01.2016, as above.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.07.2012, a police party headed by SI Karanjit Singh was present near Gilwali Gate for the purpose of patrolling and checking when a secret information was received to the effect that the appellant, Jagtar Singh @ Sonu @ Bhoot, son of Mohinder Singh, who was habituated to committing offences of snatching by brandishing weapons and intimidating passersby, was approaching from Tarn Taran Municipal Colony and could be apprehended along with the snatched articles and weapons if a raid were conducted forthwith. Acting upon the said information, the Investigating Officer, along with the accompanying police personnel, intercepted the appellant, who was carrying a kit bag on his shoulder. Upon searching the kit bag, two polythene packets were recovered. One of the packets was found to contain Charas, from which two samples of 10 grams each were drawn and the remaining contraband, upon weighment, was found to be 480 grams. The samples were thereafter SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.15 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3369-2025(O&M) 4 converted into parcels and sealed and a recovery memo was also prepared. Upon further search of the second polythene packet from the appellant's kit bag, six mobile phones were recovered. Additionally, a country-made .12 bore pistol was recovered from the appellant's left dub (flank). On unloading the firearm, one live cartridge was recovered and another live cartridge was found in the right pocket of his trousers. The appellant was unable to furnish any proof of ownership with respect to the recovered mobile phones and is stated to have disclosed that the same had been snatched from various individuals. A ruqa was accordingly dispatched, on the basis of which the FIR in question was registered and the appellant was arrested. Further search led to the recovery of currency notes amounting to Rs.100/-. Pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the appellant, an Activa scooter as well as additional stolen mobile phones and laptops, were recovered from his residence.
3. On completion of investigation and collection of documents, final report was filed before the competent Court.
4. Complete set of documents were handed over to the appellant. Subsequently, charges under Section 20 read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 420/411/414 IPC were framed, to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the case was adjourned for prosecution evidence.
5. In support of his case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and also produced the case property i.e. bulk parcel of Charas Ex.MO1, specimen sample parcel Ex.MO2, recovered mobile phones Ex.MO3 to Ex.MO13, bag Ex. MO14, laptop Ex.MO15, Activa EX.MO16, SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.15 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3369-2025(O&M) 5 parcel of pistol Ex.MO17 and parcel of cartridges Ex.MO18.
6. The prosecution, despite having been afforded several opportunities, failed to conclude its evidence. Thus, the Trial Court proceeded to close the prosecution evidence by order.
7. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein all incriminating circumstances and evidence appearing on record were put to him. He denied the allegations in their entirety and described the prosecution case and evidence as false and fabricated and asserted his innocence. However, no evidence in defence has been led by him.
8. After considering the arguments advanced, the testimonies of witnesses, and the evidence placed on record, the Trial Court, convicted the appellant for the commission of offences under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 411 IPC and accordingly sentenced him as already stated above.
9. Aggrieved thereof, the present has been filed.
10. After arguing the matter at some length, counsel for the appellant does not press the present appeal on merits and contends that he would confine his challenge only to the quantum of punishment that has been so awarded. The following mitigating circumstances are pointed out for by the counsel for the petitioner:
i. The appellant is a 37-year-old individual, and his continued incarceration would inflict undue severity upon him. ii. Against the maximum sentence of 2½ years imposed under Section 20 of the NDPS Act along with a fine of Rs.2,500/-, and SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.15 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3369-2025(O&M) 6 in default, two months' further imprisonment, the appellant has already undergone an actual custody of 2 years and 12 days, thereby serving the substantial portion of the sentence awarded. iii. The appellant has remained in custody since 2012 owing to his involvement in earlier cases. In FIR No. 27 dated 04.03.2013, he stood convicted on 10.09.2014 and completed the entire 10-year sentence on 21.08.2021. In another case, FIR No. 31 dated 14.03.2013 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, he underwent 4 years, 10 months, and 20 days of actual custody before being released on bail on 11.02.2024.
iv.No FIR has been registered against the appellant after the year 2013, thereby demonstrating a clear departure from past conduct.
v. Owing to continuous custody across various cases, the appellant has effectively remained in prison for over a decade. In such circumstances, insistence upon the completion of the remaining sentence of 2½ years would serve no penological purpose. vi.The appellant is a person of limited financial means and lacks meaningful family support. His continued incarceration would only exacerbate his socio-economic distress.
11. State counsel, on the other hand, contends that the trial Court has examined the evidence brought on record and recorded a finding of conviction against the appellant. There is no illegality or perversity that has been pointed out by the appellant, hence, there is no occasion that would call for upsetting the findings recorded or the sentence awarded by the trial SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.15 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3369-2025(O&M) 7 Court. Counsel also submits that the appellant is involved in other offences and has been convicted in two cases. He contends that the appellant was earlier convicted in case FIR No.27 dated 04.03.2013 under Sections 376, 365, 382, 307, 323, 506, 411, 419, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. He was also convicted in FIR No.31 dated 14.03.2013 which was registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar, wherein he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. However, this fact is not disputed by the State that the appellant has already been granted the concession of bail after his sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2024.
12. Further, it is not in dispute that as against the awarded sentence of 2½ years in the present case, the appellant has undergone 02 years and 12 days. The socio-economic circumstances of the appellant are not denied or disputed by the respondent-State as well.
13. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with the present petition.
14. This court in the case of Lakshay Jain v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as 2025 PHHC 158179 has held that sentencing must prioritise a reformative approach, assessing an offender's background and circumstances rather than adopting a purely punitive stance. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment are as follows:
32. The imposition of punishment is a refined judicial function that demands a careful harmonization of its underlying purposes namely, retribution, deterrence, and reformation. This balance must reflect not only the reasoning of the Court but SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.15 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3369-2025(O&M) 8 also the ethical standards and social context in which justice is administered. As societal values and circumstances evolve, the prominence accorded to each of these aims necessarily varies, requiring the Court to adapt its emphasis in response to the changing demands of justice. The aforesaid principle found early articulation in the writings of Justice Caldwell, who, in his authoritative work "Criminology," observed that:
"If the infliction of pain is to have its greatest effect upon the behavior of a person, it must follow soon after the act for which it is given. But punishment always takes place weeks or even months after the offense has been committed, since the offender must first be apprehended, tried, and convicted. Such delay tends to disconnect the punishment from the offense in the mind of the offender, and it may well be considered as merely another painful experience in an unjust world."
33. Moreover, Italian criminologist and jurist Cesare Beccaria, in his seminal treatise "On Crimes and Punishments," propounded the doctrine of penal parsimony, emphasizing that the justification of any criminal justice system rests upon its capacity to inflict the least possible evil necessary to achieve its ends. The underlying premise is that punishment, being in itself a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue, must be confined strictly within the bounds of necessity. The imposition of suffering or restriction upon an offender cannot extend beyond what is indispensable for the preservation of social order.
34. While 'retributive' object of sentencing is seen regressive, in modern day sentencing jurisprudence for its focus on punishing proportionally for the harm done and caters to the negative senses of spite and anger against a wrongful act, the rehabilitative/reformative approach examines the circumstances surrounding the offender on social, economical, SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.15 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3369-2025(O&M) 9 physical and psychological level so as to reintegrate the offender in the social mainstream. The law extends the benefit of good and perceives a probability and possibility of reform. It aims at capitalising a perceived social liability. The expectation of law is based on the surrounding circumstances to distinguish between a 'criminal' and an 'offender'.
35. While the pre-requisites of crime do not distinguish two persons, on the legal scale, this aspect is significant for sentencing. A mere involvement of a person in crime may not necessarily mark a person as a 'criminal.' 'Criminality' in mind and action has to be determined from the totality of circumstances including the mode and manner in committing an offence, the conduct pre and post the offence, the criminal antecedents, nature of involvement, influence of peers etc. and not just from an isolatory consideration of commission of an offence. A Court of law would not assume every offender to be beyond reform and differentiate in punishment on considering whether the offences arise due to human error or that stem from actions propelled by mens rea.
36. The case in hand is yet another where interest of justice would warrant a reformative approach in precedence to a punitive or retributive approach. It is not the function of the judges to seek the transformation of human nature itself, but rather to shape the framework within which individuals perceive that adherence to the law aligns with their own best interests.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances, I find it significant that the appellant has remained in continuous custody since the year 2012 and that there is no instance of his involvement in any criminal matter after 2013, indicating a cessation of past delinquent tendencies. Insofar as the present case is concerned, against the awarded sentence of 2½ SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.15 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3369-2025(O&M) 10 years, the appellant has already undergone actual custody of 2 years and 12 days, which is a significant portion of the substantive sentence imposed upon him.
16. The absence of any involvement of the appellant in other criminal conduct or prison offence itself reflects a reformative tendency on his part. In the given circumstances, the appellant does deserve a measure of faith, with an expectation that he shall undertake activities conducive to his reintegration into the mainstream of society rather than engaging in any conduct detrimental to societal interests.
17. The object of law is to provide an effective opportunity to a person to re-integrate into the social framework and such reintegration begins with the indulgence shown by the Court and the faith reposed in him. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the socio-economic conditions, that may well have contributed to the appellant's earlier involvement in crime, any sincere effort on his part to earn a dignified life should not be undermined by an unduly punitive approach of the Court. The petitioner is currently stated to be 37 years of age and has already spent more than 12 years in prison, hence, a major part of his prime. Any later, all opportunities shall lose out on him and there would hardly be any scope for reform.
18. The object of law is not merely to punish, but to provide a corrective space for an individual to re-introspect and to devise new strategies for a constructive life. In that spirit, I deem it appropriate to sympathetically consider the plea advanced by the appellant for reduction of sentence.
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.15 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-3369-2025(O&M) 11
19. Consequently, the instant appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of conviction passed by the Court of Judge, Special Court, Amritsar vide judgment of conviction dated 05.01.2016 is upheld, however, the order of sentence of even date i.e. 05.01.2016, is modified and the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
December 08, 2025 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2025.12.15 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document