Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakhi vs State Of Punjab on 16 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakhi vs State Of Punjab on 16 February, 2024

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022292




                                                                 2024:PHHC:022292
214

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
                                         Crl. Misc. No. M-7495 of 2024
                                         Date of Decision: February 16, 2024

Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakhi
                                                                      ......Petitioner
                                         versus

State of Punjab
                                                                      .....Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
                                              ***
Present:-   Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate
            for the petitioner

            Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG Punjab

                                              ***

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking

grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the case bearing FIR No. 404 dated

10.12.2020 registered under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station

City Sohana, District SAS Nagar.

2. The present FIR was lodged on the allegations that on 09.12.2020,

the complainant has gone to the house of his sister Gurmeet Kaur. When he was

about to leave, his sister asked him to once meet Gurwinder Singh, who had

gone to a wedding party in the village. After a while he heard a noise, it was

around 10.00 o’clock at night. The complainant and his sister Gurmeet Kaur

opened the gate and came out in the street and found that his nephew Gurwinder

Singh was being abused by the petitioner (Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakhi). The

petitioner was holding an axe in his hand and he attacked his nephew Gurwinder

Singh and inflicted a blow with the axe on his neck. His nephew suffered a deep

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 18-02-2024 01:21:51 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022292

2024:PHHC:022292

Crl. Misc. No. M-7495 of 2024 -2-

cut on his neck and fell down. Then, Lakhwinder Singh (petitioner) ran away

from the spot alongwith his weapon. Jagjeet Singh, a co-villager got Gurwinder

Singh admitted at Shri Harikrishan Sahib Eye Hospital, Sohana where he was

declared brought dead by the doctor.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that perusal of

the record would indicate that it is a case of sudden fight and only solitary blow

with axe was inflicted on the deceased. Further reference to exception (4) of

Section 300 of IPC is made to submit whether the offence under Section 302 IPC

is made out or it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, would

be a moot point to be determined by the learned trial Court. In support of his

argument learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to testimony of

deposition of the eye witness PW-1 Gurmeet Kaur, who is mother of the

deceased and during her cross-examination she has admitted that there was no

enmity between the petitioner and her deceased son and there was no dispute

pending between them with regard to any matter. Learned counsel further

submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 10.12.2020 and the

prosecution case is progressing at a snail’s pace and delay in conclusion of the

trial would violate the fundamental right of the petitioner enshrined under Article

21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that he is the main accused. The

intention and knowledge is writ large to commit murder and the petitioner has

given a deadly blow with a sharp edged weapon which proved fatal, as such the

petitioner is not entitled to be released on regular bail.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 18-02-2024 01:21:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022292

2024:PHHC:022292

Crl. Misc. No. M-7495 of 2024 -3-

the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since

10.12.2020 and both the eye witnesses have been examined and out of total of 14

PWs only 04 PWs have been examined till date. Culpability, if any, would be

determined at the time of the trial. So further incarceration of the petitioner

without there being the prospect of the conclusion of the trial in the near future,

would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. 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 expiring with the

final verdict of the last Court. It has further been held in law that if a person is

deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair, or just,

such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India. The procedure so prescribed must ensure speedy trial

for determination of the guilt of such person. Some amount of denial of personal

liberty cannot be avoided, but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes

excessively long, the fairness guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of

India would come into play.

7. 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,

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 18-02-2024 01:21:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022292

2024:PHHC:022292

Crl. Misc. No. M-7495 of 2024 -4-

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.

8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed solely on the

ground of long custody already undergone by the petitioner and without

commenting on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the

case pending before the trial Court. The petitioner- Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakhi

is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail

bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.

9. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of

opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed

without being prejudiced by observations of this Court.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
February 16, 2024
reena

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022292

4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 18-02-2024 01:21:52 :::

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *