CRM-M-65465- IN THE H (121) SUNIL KUMAR STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S of Arms Act (Sect Jalalabad, District 2. The a got recorded by t 04.02.2021, her so Chhabra, when 8 armed with weap -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
MAR @ SUNNY BAGHLA Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Naresh Kumar Manchanda, Advo Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of nder Sections 307, 324, 323, 148, 149 t (Section 302 and 201 of IPC added l istrict Fazilka. The aforementioned FIR was registe d by the complainant Neelam Rani her son Rahul Sukhija was standing hen 8-9 youths riding on 03 motorbik weapons. They made an exhortati JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-65465-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.03.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
Advocate for the petitioner Punjab preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.34 dated 05.02.2021 , 149 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 dded later on) at Police Station City registered on the basis of statement Rani alleging that on the night of nding near the fritters shop of Rajan otorbikes reached there. They were hortation challenging her son. On M) 2026 oner
dent
nder SS”) 2021 d 27 City ment ht of ajan were On AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.16 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65465- hearing, her son t youth pulled him one of them fired seriously injured same several pers complainant also c son was taken to th 3. After The victim Rahu complainant reco petitioner alongwi Sonu and 03 unk under Section 302 victim was conduc law M (name with investigation agai accused Sameljee Proceedings for de were declared as s on 08.04.2025. H under Section 201 Supplementary ch accused after conc -2025 (O&M) 2 son tried to enter inside the shop of d him out of the shop and opened an fired shots with pistol upon her son w jured and after falling down, he rais al persons reached there and then th t also came to know about the inciden en to the hospital in a critical condition ter registration of FIR, investigatio Rahul Sukhija succumbed to inj t recorded a supplementary stateme longwith the co-accused Sameljeet @ 3 unknown persons had assaulted an on 302 of IPC was added. Post-mor conducted. Initially accused Manjit S e withheld) and Manga @ Sonu wer n against them, challan was presen meljeet @ Samel and Gaurav Arora for declaring them proclaimed person ed as such on 17.03.2025. The petitio 25. He suffered disclosure statement on 201 of IPC was added. Co-accuse ary challan has been presented agains r conclusion of investigation. op of Rajan Chhabra but one of the ed an attacked with a kappa. Then, r son with intent to kill him. He was he raised clamour. On hearing the hen the assailants fled away. The ncident and rushed to the spot. Her ndition. stigation proceedings were initiated. to injuries on 11.02.2021. The tatement alleging that the present jeet @ Samel, Gaurav Arora, Bittu, ted and killed the victim. Offence mortem of the dead body of the anjit Singh, juvenile in conflict with u were arrested. On completion of presented. The petitioner and co- Arora could not be apprehended. persons have been initiated and they petitioner was arrested by the Police ement on the basis of which offence accused were subsequently arrested. against the petitioner and other co- f the hen, was the The Her ated. The esent ittu, ence f the with n of - ded. they olice ence sted. - AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.16 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65465- 4. It is a falsely implicated complainant which on account of deli petitioner has been occurrence. No re a proclaimed perso since 09.04.2025. purpose would be accused Manjeet parity, he too dese that he deserves to 5. Per co declared a proclaim are chances of his the petition does n 6. This C for the parties at co 7. The complainant after recovery has bee considerable time Bittu has been ex -2025 (O&M) 3 It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case on the basis of su t which was recorded 06 days after th of deliberations and concoctions. No t as been conducted. The complainant No recovery has been effected from h d person without adopting proper proc .2025. The trial will take considerable uld be served by his further incarcer njeet Singh @ Bittu has since been o deserves to be extended the benefit o to be released on bail. Per contra, learned State counsel has roclaimed person. There are serious a of his absconding, if extended benefit does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis at considerable length. The petitioner was not named in the t after six days without attributing any s been effected from the petitioner. e time to conclude. Similarly situated een extended benefit of bail. He has l for the petitioner that he has been of supplementary statement of the fter the incident. Her implication is . No test identification parade of the inant was not the eye-witness to the from him. He was wrongly declared r procedure of law. He is in custody derable time to conclude. No useful carceration. Similarly situated co- been extended benefit of bail. On enefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued el has argued that the petitioner was rious allegations against him. There enefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that ubmissions made by learned counsel in the FIR and he was named by the ng any specific overt act to him. No tioner. The trial is likely to take ituated co-accused Manjeet Singh @ He has clean antecedents. It is well been f the on is f the o the lared tody l - On gued was here that unsel y the . No take h @ well AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.16 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65465- settled proposition post-conviction se accused during tr consideration the opinion that cont fruitful purpose. ordered to be relea bonds to the satisf 8. In th conditions, the re seeking cancellatio 9. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 10. Since any, is rendered in 16.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 osition of law that pre-trial incarcerat tion sentencing. The object of the jail ring trial, and it cannot be preventi n the facts as discussed above, this t continued detention of the petition pose. Accordingly, the petition is a e released on bail subject to his furnis satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM In the eventuality of breach of the respondent-State shall be at lib cellation of the 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 al ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
  
arceration should not be a replica of he jail is to secure appearance of the eventive or punitive. Taking into e, this Court is of the considered etitioner is not going to serve any n is allowed and the petitioner is furnishing personal as well as surety rt/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. h of any of the aforementioned at liberty to move an application e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
allowed pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE
Yes/No
ca of f the into ered any er is urety oned ation l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.16 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.