CRM-M-72733- IN THE H (121) JASWINDER SIN STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. M Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The petitioner under S short “BNSS”) fo 24.06.2021 registe Act and Section 4 Sherpur, District S dismissed as withd 2. The statement got rec alleging therein t Jaspaljit Kaur in between them, Jas -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
R SINGH @ BHINDER Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Mitul Singh Rana, Advocate for t Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the third petition nder Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagari for grant of regular bail in case a registered under Sections 336, 506, 3 tion 4 of Explosive Substances Act (ad strict Sangrur. The previous two petit s withdrawn. The aforementioned FIR was reg recorded by the complainant N rein that his younger brother Malk ur in the year 2017. Due to matri m, Jaspaljit Kaur and her family memb JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-72733-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
te for the petitioner etition that has been moved by the agarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for case arising out of FIR No.52 dated 506, 34 of IPC; Section 25 of Arms Act (added later on) at Police Station o petitions as filed by him had been s registered on the basis of the ant Nirbhay Singh on 24.06.2021 Malkeet Singh was married with matrimonial discord having arisen members lodged complaints against 2026 the (for ated rms ation been the 2021 with risen ainst AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72733- the family membe Singh had gone to His brother had in messages and calls call and on asking house and found a about this fact thr order to frighten prayed for taking a 3. After Statements of m investigation, one the complainant w destroyed. Offenc The accused Jasp another case beari City II, Khanna su petitioner and him of the house of th accused and were concluded. 4. It is a falsely implicated -2025 (O&M) 2 embers of the complainant. In the y one to USA. Jaspaljit Kaur had also had informed him that on 18.06.202 d calls thereby threatening him. On 2 asking of his brother, the complainan ound a bullet to be piercing through th act through WhatsApp. By alleging t ghten his family, had fired shots with aking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigatio of material witnesses were record n, one handgrenade was found on the r nant which was diffused and was taken Offence under Section 4 of the Explos d Jaspreet Singh @ Nuppi who was e bearing FIR No.140 dated 04.07.202 nna suffered disclosure statement abo d himself in firing gunshots and thro e of the complainant. Both of them were arrested in this case on 23.07.20 It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case on the basis of discl the year 2019, his brother Malkeet d also settled in Philippine (Manila). 6.2021, he had received WhatsApp . On 22.06.2021 also, he got a threat lainant checked the main gate of his ough the same. His brother had told ging that some unknown persons in ts with pistol outside his house, he stigation proceedings were initiated. recorded. During the course of n the roof of the residential house of taken into possession and then was xplosive Substances Act was added. o was arrested in connection with .07.2021 registered at Police Station about involvement of the present d throwing handgrenade on the roof them were nominated as additional 3.07.2021. Investigation now stands l for the petitioner that he has been f disclosure statement of co-accused lkeet nila). sApp hreat f his told ns in e ated. e of se of was ded. with ation esent roof ional tands been used AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72733- which cannot be c the FIR. No incr material on record Explosive Substa members of the prolonged incarce him with the alleg 06 months. There 05 out of 22 prose of the fact that he concession of bail deserves to be allo 5. Status counsel has argue petitioner. He is similar offences, petition does not d 6. This C for both the parties 7. The p the offences on th Singh @ Nuppi. -2025 (O&M) 3 ot be considered to be admissible in ev o incriminating article has been reco record to link him with the subject o Substances act. The matrimonial f the complainant has been exclusi ncarceration of the petitioner without e alleged offences. He is in custody fo There are no chances of conclusion of prosecution witnesses have been exa hat he has been involved in some oth of bail. With these broad submission be allowed. Status report and custody certificate h argued that there are serious and sp He is a habitual offender. There ar nces, if extended benefit of bail. It s not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner was not nominated in t on the basis of the disclosure statem uppi. It is only on thorough asses e in evidence. He was not named in n recovered from him. There is no bject offences under Section 4of the onial dispute between the family xclusively criminalized leading to ithout any credible evidence linking ody for over a period of 04 years and sion of trial in the near future as only en examined so far. Merely because me other cases, he cannot be denied sions, it is urged that the petition icate have been filed. Learned State and specific allegations against the here are chances of his committing il. It is, therefore, argued that the ubmissions made by learned counsel ted in the FIR and has been linked to statement of the co-accused Jaspreet assessment of the evidence to be ed in is no f the mily g to king s and only ause nied tition State t the itting t the unsel ed to preet o be AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72733- adduced during tr disclosure statem incriminating arti pursuance of the custody for a perio considerable time considering an app such as whether th the accused has co accused, likelihoo accusation, severit 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 -2025 (O&M) 4 ing trial that any definite conclusion statement of the co-accused in ev g article or distinct fact is shown f the alleged disclosure statement. a period of 04 years, 06 months and 15 e time to conclude. It is well-settle an application for grant of bail, has t ther there is a prima facie case or rea has committed the offence, circumsta elihood of the offence being repeated severity of the punishment in the even 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 lusion as to the admissibility of the in evidence can be drawn. No hown to have been discovered in ent. The petitioner has been in and 15 days now. The trial will take settled law that the Court, while , has to keep certain factors in mind or reasonable ground to believe that umstances which are peculiar to the peated, the nature and gravity of the e event of conviction, the danger of 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 rtain 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), f the No d in n in take hile mind that o the he er of able time, hile ence. used bail ly. It se of le is ming stice y the hi), AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72733- 2023 SCC OnLi overcrowded and t danger of unjusti hardened rather th and Another v. S 8656 of 2023 deci SCC OnLine SC incarcerated for a take considerable militates against t 21 of the Constitu and jail is an exc conviction sentenc accused during tria 8. On an case in the light o petitioner has suff months and 15 da Court is of the opi at this stage. Acco be released on b satisfaction of the concerned. -2025 (O&M) 5 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 SC 110, wherein bail was granted for a period of almost two to three y erable time. By observing that prolo ainst the most precious fundamental r nstitution. The well settled propositio n exception. Pre-trial incarceration s sentencing. The object of the jail is ing trial, and it cannot be preventive or On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle as suffered prolonged incarceration for days and the attendant facts and c the opinion that a case is made out for . Accordingly, the petition is allowed a on bail on furnishing personal as of the learned trial Court/Chief Judici 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 ranted to the accused who had been hree years and the trial was likely to t prolonged incarceration generally ental right guaranteed under Article position of law is that bail is the rule ation should not be replica of post- jail is to secure appearance of the tive or punitive. ts and circumstances of the present nciples of law, it transpires that the ion for over a period of 04 years, 06 and circumstances of the case, this out for grant of bail to the petitioner owed and the petitioner is ordered to al as well as surety bonds to the Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate are . The o be dal No. 23 been ly to rally rticle rule - f the esent t the s, 06 , this ioner ed to the trate AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72733- 9. In the petitioner, it shal application seekin 10. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 11. Since any, is rendered in 20.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 6 In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent to seeking cancellation of bail. It is made clear that any observation of deciding the present petition and t s of the case. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
   y FIR/complaint lodged against the t to seek redressal by filing an vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
t the g an y for aring n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.