CRM-M-66807- IN THE H (229) AMANDEEP SIN STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Section 307 Arms Act, 1959 at 2. The a of statement recor that on the same d was going toward Jagsir Singh. Whe a vehicle came fro of which 01 fired -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH P SINGH @ AMNA Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ail in case arising out of FIR No.12 n 307, 427, 336, 341, 506, 120-B and 959 at Police Station Canal Colony, B The aforementioned FIR was register t recorded by complainant-Kulveer Si ame day, he alongwith his friend Parm owards his Village Naruana in his Sco . When they reached Ring Road – Mu me from behind. There were 3-4 occ fired a shot with some fire arm tow JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-66807-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 04.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
for the petitioner Punjab by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 128 dated 22.06.2021 registered B and 34 of IPC and Section 25 of ony, Bathinda, District Bathinda. egistered on 22.06.2021, on the basis eer Singh @ Veera alleging therein d Parminder Singh and Jagsir Singh, his Scorpio car which was driven by Multiania Road Chowk suddenly 4 occupants in the said vehicle, out rm towards his car. Thereafter, 8-9 M) 2026 oner
dent
ction grant tered 5 of basis erein , n by enly , out 9 AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-66807- shots were fired on to kill him. He id Man Singh and N had a scuffle in th taking action in th 3. After The petitioner and additional accused arrested on 26.07. and magazine was 4. It is a falsely implicated The ingredients are not attracted q not present at the s assailants in the F prosecution witnes registered against involvement in o prolonged incarce sufficient ground deserves to be rele record certain ord extended benefit o -2025 (O&M) 2 ired on the front and rear window pan identified 04 of them as Sandeep and Neeraj Chaska. By alleging that le in the past, might have a hand in n in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigatio er and co-accused Gagandeep Singh ccused on 22.07.2021. The petition 26.07.2021. Recovery of 04 pistols o as effected from them. Investigati It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case. A false recovery for commission of offence punis cted qua him as no one had sustained at the spot and that is why his name w the FIR. The trial is likely to take co witnesses has been examined so far. H gainst him and cannot be denied t in other cases which are falsely ncarceration of more than 04 years round to seek concession of bail. It be released on bail. Learned counsel f in orders of this Court and Trial Co nefit of bail in 07 other cases. w panes of his vehicle with an intent ndeep Singh @ Bhalla, Fateh Singh, that the petitioner with whom he nd in the occurrence, he prayed for stigation proceedings were initiated. Singh @ Badal were nominated as petitioner and the co-accused were s of 32 bore, four live cartridges stigation now stands completed. l for the petitioner that he has been covery has been planted upon him. punishable under Section 307 IPC tained injury in the incident. He was ame was not mentioned as one of the ake considerable time as none of the far. He is on bail in all the cases as enied benefit of bail due to his lsely registered against him. His years and 05 months has furnished ail. It is, therefore, argued that he unsel for the petitioner has placed on ial Court showing that he has been ntent , m he d for ated. d as were idges been him. IPC was f the f the es as his His ished at he d on been AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-66807- 5. Status counsel has argued cases have been r similar offences, bail. It is, therefor 6. This parties. 7. The p attempt to kill the only as a suspecte assailants, howeve the eye-witness P No one had susta custody for a perio chances of conclu witness has been e conclusion of trial in other cases can bail to him. application for gra there is a prima fa committed the o likelihood of the accusation, severit -2025 (O&M) 3 Status report and custody certificate h argued that the petitioner is a habitual been registered against him. There a nces, absconding or intimidating the w erefore, argued that the petition does n This Court has heard the rival sub The petitioner alongwith the co-accus ill the complainant. Though in the spected person and he was not state owever, the factum of his presence wa ness Parminder Singh as recorded on sustained injury in the incident. T a period of over 04 years, 05 months onclusion of trial in the near future as been examined so far. There is no ma of trial is attributable to petitioner in a es cannot be considered to be a sole It is well-settled law that the for grant of bail, has to keep certain fa ima facie case or reasonable ground t the offence, circumstances which a of the offence being repeated, the severity of the punishment in the even icate have been filed. Learned State abitual offender since as many as 24 e are chances of his committing the witnesses, if extended benefit of does not deserve to be allowed. al submissions made by both the accused is alleged to have made an n the FIR the petitioner was named t stated to be present alongwith the nce was recorded in the statement of ed one month after the occurrence. nt. The petitioner is in continuous onths and 15 days. There are bleak as not even a single prosecution no material to show that the delay in er in any manner. His involvement sole ground for denying benefit of at the Court, while considering an tain factors in mind such as whether ound to believe that the accused has hich are peculiar to the accused, d, the nature and gravity of the e event of conviction, the danger of State s 24 itting fit of the e an med h the nt of ence. uous leak ution ay in ment fit of g an ether has used, the er of AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-66807- the accused absc apprehension of th the period of inc deciding whether The Hon’ble Ape cannot be kept i application can be has also been held action for filing a a part of the broad to balance the righ system. Reliance i Hon’ble Apex Co 2023 SCC OnLi overcrowded and t danger of unjusti hardened rather th and Another v. S 8656 of 2023 deci LiveLaw (SC) 53 incarcerated for a take considerable militates against t 21 of the Constitut -2025 (O&M) 4 d absconding or fleeing if release n of the witnesses being threatened, et of incarceration is also a relevant f ether bail should be granted to an acc e Apex Court has observed in a cat kept in custody for an indefinite p can be considered on its own merits e n held that every day spent in custod ling a bail application under certain ci broader approach emphasizing that la he rights of the accused with the requi iance in this regard can be placed on ex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Huss nLine SC 352, wherein it was d and their living conditions are, more unjustified imprisonment is that inm ther than reformed. Reliance can also v. State of West Bengal, Special L decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Pra ) 533,, wherein bail was granted t r a period of almost two to three y erable time. By observing that prolo ainst the most precious fundamental r nstitution. released on bail, and reasonable ned, etc. However, at the same time, vant factor to be considered while an accused charged with an offence. a catena of cases that an accused inite period of time, and the bail erits even if it is filed repeatedly. It custody can provide a new cause of in circumstances. This principle is that law prefers bail over jail, aiming requirements of the criminal justice ed on the observations made by the Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), t was observed that the jails are , more often than not, appalling. The at inmates are more likely to be n also be placed upon Manmandal ial Leave Petition (Criminal) No. i Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 nted to the accused who had been hree years and the trial was likely to t prolonged incarceration generally ental right guaranteed under Article able time, hile ence. used bail ly. It se of le is ming stice y the hi), are . The o be dal No. 23 been ly to rally rticle AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-66807- 8. On analyzin the light of the afo facts and circumst grant of bail to th and the petitioner as surety bonds t Magistrate/Duty M 9. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 10. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 11. Since any, is rendered in 04.02.2026 Amit Sharma


-2025 (O&M) 5 lyzing the peculiar facts and circum the aforementioned principles of law rcumstances , this Court is of the opin l to the petitioner at this stage. Accor tioner is ordered to be released on bail onds to the satisfaction of the learn uty Magistrate concerned In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

circumstances of the present case in f law and in view of above discussed e opinion that a case is made out for Accordingly, the petition is allowed n bail on furnishing personal as well e learned trial Court/Chief Judicial y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
se in ssed t for wed well icial t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.