Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir Singh Alias Bir vs State Of Punjab on 20 April, 2026
236-2
CRM-M-7408-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7408-2026
Date of decision: 20.04.2026
DALBIR SINGH @ BIR ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present:- Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ekom Pal Sagoo, AAG Punjab.
.....
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.175 dated 29.08.2023 registered under Sections 302, 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar (Rural).
2. Brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that the petitioner in connivance with co-accused fired gun shot on the right side of the neck of one Baljinder Kaur and brutally murdered her. Hence, the present FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-3 including the complainant have not supported the prosecution version and have turned hostile. Petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. Nothing is to be PUNEET SHARMA recovered from the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is in 2026.04.21 16.29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 236-2 CRM-M-7408-2026 -2- custody since 19.09.2023. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented, charges have also been framed and out 69 prosecution witnesses only 03 have been examined 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. Notice of motion.
5. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner. He has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. However, he could not controvert the fact that the material witnesses including the complainant has been declared hostile.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 years and 07 months; material witnesses including the complainant has been declared hostile; challan has been presented; charges have been framed and out of 69 prosecution witnesses only 03 have been examined and as such trial may take a long time to conclude no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody.
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 is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation against the accused and PUNEET SHARMA 2026.04.21 16.29 expiring with the final verdict of the last Court.
I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgment 236-2 CRM-M-7408-2026 -3-
8. In this regard, reference is being made to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the following decision:- Akhtari Bi Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) SCC (Crl) 1674, P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Babu Singh and others Vs. State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579, Takht Singh and others Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 10 SCC 463; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2356 of 2010, Kushal Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2JJ.) and Fazal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 752.
9. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein 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".
10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11. The present petition is disposed off accordingly.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
20.04.2026 JUDGE
puneet
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
PUNEET SHARMA
2026.04.21 16.29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment