CRM-M-18036- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (224) RAKESH KUMAR @ SHERA STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab *** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular registered under Sections 118(2), 115(2), 351(2), 190, 191(3) of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar (Rural). 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got recorded by the complainant Sham Lal Sharma alleging therein t night of 03.07.2024, he alongwith his son Rajiv Sharma was going towards house on a bullet motorbike Road, a car came from the opposite direction driver directly hit his vehicle with the motorbike driven by his son due to which -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAKESH KUMAR @ SHERA Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab *** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been preferred of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 118(2), 115(2), 351(2), 190, 191(3) of Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) (Section 238 of BNS added later on) at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar (Rural). The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got recorded by the complainant Sham Lal Sharma alleging therein t night of 03.07.2024, he alongwith his son Rajiv Sharma was going towards house on a bullet motorbike and when they were passing through Ajnala Bypass me from the opposite direction. driver directly hit his vehicle with the motorbike driven by his son due to which IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18036-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.04.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab has been preferred by the petitioner under of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in case arising out of FIR No.148 dated 25.07.2024 registered under Sections 118(2), 115(2), 351(2), 190, 191(3) of Bharatiya (Section 238 of BNS added later on) at The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got recorded by the complainant Sham Lal Sharma alleging therein that on the night of 03.07.2024, he alongwith his son Rajiv Sharma was going towards his when they were passing through Ajnala Bypass Its headlights were on, and the driver directly hit his vehicle with the motorbike driven by his son due to which 2026 .. Petitioner ...Respondent under of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) 148 dated 25.07.2024 Bharatiya (Section 238 of BNS added later on) at The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement hat on the his when they were passing through Ajnala Bypass and the driver directly hit his vehicle with the motorbike driven by his son due to which AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-18036- his son and he himself had fallen on the road. The present petitioner armed with a datar, accompanied by 04 persons unknown to the complainant alighted from the car. The petitioner made an exhortation to catch and kill the complainant and his son and then he opened an attack upon the complainant by striking blows with datar. their respective weapons. His him from the clutches of the assailants but he too sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants. On clamour being raised, several grandson reached at the spot and then the assail 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2026. Investigation qua petitioner stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he h falsely implicated in this case. There is a delay of 22 days in lodging of the FIR. In fact, the son of the complainant (Rajiv Sharma) is having an illicit relationship with his wife and is in live of filing a petition seeking protection on the basis of their live they have manipulated a back facts. The injury allegedly suffered by the complainant at the hands of the petitioner is on non simple. His son had also sustained simple injuries. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He is not required for further investigation. Trial investigation will take -2026 (O&M) 2 is son and he himself had fallen on the road. The present petitioner armed with accompanied by 04 persons unknown to the complainant alighted from . The petitioner made an exhortation to catch and kill the complainant and his son and then he opened an attack upon the complainant by striking datar. His accomplices also assaulted him by causing injuries with their respective weapons. His cellphone was snatched. His son tried to save him from the clutches of the assailants but he too sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants. On clamour being raised, several grandson reached at the spot and then the assailants fled away in the car. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2026. Investigation qua petitioner stands It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he h falsely implicated in this case. There is a delay of 22 days in lodging of the FIR. In fact, the son of the complainant (Rajiv Sharma) is having an illicit relationship with his wife and is in live-in relationship with her. For the purpose ling a petition seeking protection on the basis of their live they have manipulated a back-dated occurrence. There is concealment of real facts. The injury allegedly suffered by the complainant at the hands of the petitioner is on non-vital part. The remaining injuries were declared to be simple. His son had also sustained simple injuries. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He is not required for further investigation. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would is son and he himself had fallen on the road. The present petitioner armed with accompanied by 04 persons unknown to the complainant alighted from . The petitioner made an exhortation to catch and kill the complainant and his son and then he opened an attack upon the complainant by striking His accomplices also assaulted him by causing injuries with cellphone was snatched. His son tried to save him from the clutches of the assailants but he too sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants. On clamour being raised, several passersby including his ants fled away in the car. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2026. Investigation qua petitioner stands It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is a delay of 22 days in lodging of the FIR. In fact, the son of the complainant (Rajiv Sharma) is having an illicit in relationship with her. For the purpose ling a petition seeking protection on the basis of their live-in relationship, dated occurrence. There is concealment of real facts. The injury allegedly suffered by the complainant at the hands of the tal part. The remaining injuries were declared to be simple. His son had also sustained simple injuries. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He is not required for further investigation. Trial and to conclude. No useful purpose would is son and he himself had fallen on the road. The present petitioner armed with accompanied by 04 persons unknown to the complainant alighted from . The petitioner made an exhortation to catch and kill the complainant and his son and then he opened an attack upon the complainant by striking His accomplices also assaulted him by causing injuries with cellphone was snatched. His son tried to save him from the clutches of the assailants but he too sustained injuries at the hands including his After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2026. Investigation qua petitioner stands as been falsely implicated in this case. There is a delay of 22 days in lodging of the FIR. In fact, the son of the complainant (Rajiv Sharma) is having an illicit in relationship with her. For the purpose in relationship, dated occurrence. There is concealment of real facts. The injury allegedly suffered by the complainant at the hands of the tal part. The remaining injuries were declared to be simple. His son had also sustained simple injuries. The subject offences are and to conclude. No useful purpose would AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-18036- be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that keeping in view the allegations as lev deserve to be extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerabl 7. The petitioner alongwith his membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object thereof, to have make out a prima facie petitioner, however, he has been in custody since 11.02.2026. Investigation qua him now stands concluded. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. The continued detention of the petitioner is not The well settled proposition of law is that Pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of post object of the jail is to secure appearance of th be preventive or punitive. opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petition on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the -2026 (O&M) 3 be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that keeping in view the allegations as levelled against the petition, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner alongwith his accomplices membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object assaulted the complainant and his son. Though the allegations prima facie case for commission of subject offences by the present petitioner, however, he has been in custody since 11.02.2026. Investigation qua him now stands concluded. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. The continued detention of the petitioner is not going to have any fruitful purpose. The well settled proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. trial incarceration should not be replica of post object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petition on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that elled against the petition, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel accomplices is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object assaulted the complainant and his son. Though the allegations e for commission of subject offences by the present petitioner, however, he has been in custody since 11.02.2026. Investigation qua him now stands concluded. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. The going to have any fruitful purpose. bail is the rule and jail is an exception. trial incarceration should not be replica of post-conviction sentencing. The e accused during trial, and it cannot In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that elled against the petition, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object assaulted the complainant and his son. Though the allegations e for commission of subject offences by the present petitioner, however, he has been in custody since 11.02.2026. Investigation qua him now stands concluded. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. The going to have any fruitful purpose. bail is the rule and jail is an exception. conviction sentencing. The e accused during trial, and it cannot In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. er is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-18036- satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magist concerned and on the following conditions : (i) inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any circumstance (iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of hearing. (iv) The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnish informing the trial Court. (v) The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. (vi) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, wit learned trial Court. -2026 (O&M) 4 satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magist concerned and on the following conditions :- (i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of hearing. (iv) The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court. (v) The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. (vi) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, wit learned trial Court. satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any without permission of the learned trial Court. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of (iv) The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of ing of bonds and shall not change the same without (v) The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. (vi) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the rate/Duty Magistrate not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any (iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of (iv) The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of ing of bonds and shall not change the same without (v) The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and h the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-18036- 8. In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the respondent seeking cancellation of the bail. 9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. 10. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infr 30.04.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 5 In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of the bail. It is, however, clarified that the observations made be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. Since the main petition has been allowed, any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned State shall be at liberty to move an application It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned State shall be at liberty to move an application above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.