Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagwan Singh Alias Gaggi vs State Of Punjab on 16 October, 2025
1
CRM-
CRM-M-49174-
49174-2025
224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-49174-
49174-2025
Date of decision: October 16,
16, 2025
Bhagwan Singh alias Gaggi
....Petitioner
Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Rahul Kadian, Advocate for
Mr. Shailender Kadian, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present third petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ''BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. No.28 dated 04.02.2020,, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 382, 483, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'Arms Act'), Act'), registered at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur.
2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that complainant, namely, Daljit Singh,, alleged that his elder sister Gurpreet Kaur was married to Jagmohan Singh @ Mohni in the year 2012. On 03.02.2020,, at about 5:00-6:00 6:00 AM, AM Jagmohan Singh @ Mohni left for Village Bhunna, District Fatehabad (Haryana) in his car bearing registration number PB PB-75--
1440 to procure medicines for his mother. However, he did not return home till 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 07:02:45 ::: 2 CRM-
CRM-M-49174- 49174-2025 late at night, and repeated attempts to contact him on his mobile phone proved unsuccessful. Thereafter, Daljit Singh, along with his father Joga Singh, and acquaintances, namely, Rajvir Singh and Jasvir Singh, proceeded towards Jakhal (Haryana) to search for him. When they reached near the liquor vend, located slightly behind the Talwara railway crossing, at about 12:15 AM on 04.02.2020, they noticed a crowd gathered on the roadside. Upon stopping their vehicle and approaching the spot, they discovered a dead body lying on the roadside smeared with blood. On closer examination, they identified the deceased as Jagmohan Singh @ Mohni. Blood was oozing from his head and ear, and bullet injuries were visible on his body. It appeared that unknown persons had murdered Jagmohan Singh @ Mohni and had also snatched his car and mobile phone. During the post-mortem examination, it was found that the deceased Jagmohan Singh @ Mohni had sustained five firearm injuries, confirming death due to gunshot wounds.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 17.03.2020. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has also iterated that prime prosecution witness, namely, Daljit Singh (FIR- complainant) has turned hostile when examined as prosecution witness. Learned counsel has argued that apart from recovery effected from the petitioner and his own disclosure statement, there is nothing tangible evidence available against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has suffered incarceration in the case in hand for more than 05 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 07:02:46 ::: 3 CRM-
CRM-M-49174- 49174-2025 counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 15.10.2025, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 17.03.2020 whereinafter investigation was conducted and the challan has been presented on 13.06.2020. Total 41 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, 14 have been examined and 08 have been given up till date. It is thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long time. 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 petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. 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 petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 07:02:46 ::: 4 CRM-
CRM-M-49174- 49174-2025 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."
6.2. Indubitably, the present petition is the third attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.07.2024. However, keeping in view extended incarceration of the petitioner for a period of more than 01 year and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a CRA--S-2332 judgment of this Court passed in CRA 2332--2023 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."
4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 07:02:46 ::: 5 CRM-
CRM-M-49174- 49174-2025 6.3. As per custody certificate dated 15.10.2025 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 08 months and 20 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner 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 petitioner 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.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail 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 petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 07:02:46 ::: 6 CRM-
CRM-M-49174- 49174-2025
(vi) The petitioner 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.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8. 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 petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL) GOEL) JUDGE October 16, 16, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 07:02:46 :::