IN THE 218 Ram Dayal Tard State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. Mr. Dr. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The Bharatiya Nagarik petitioner in case Sections 105, 281, Police Station City 2. The Vijay Rana, son No.07/R Hira Bagh as under:- “I am Transport PM, number Jagraon work, Chowk. and THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17858 Date of decision: Tard VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD . Dinesh Arora, Mr. Jatin Sehra and Mr. Snehdeep Kaswan, Advocates for (Ms.) Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant first petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for case bearing FIR No.252 dated 281, 125(A), 324(4) of the Bharatiya City Jagraon, District Ludhiana. The FIR in the present case has been son of Prakash Chand Rana, resident Bagh Jagraon, Khanna City, District am a resident of the above address Transport Labour Contractor Jagraon. PM, I had gone to Jagraon City number PB-10-EM-7874 and my wife Jagraon on scooter for our personal work, we were coming back to our house Chowk. My wife Reena Rana was driving and I was driving behind her on my PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 17858-2026(O&M) decision: 09.04.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ and for the petitioner. Punjab. filed under Section 483 of the grant of regular bail to the 12.11.2025 registered under haratiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at registered on the statement of resident of House No.570, Street District Ludhiana. The same reads address and I am a worker of Jagraon. On 11-11-2025 at 06.00 on my motorcycle Splender wife Reena Rana had gone to personal work and after finishing my house via bridge of Jhansi Rani driving her scooty ahead of me my motorcycle at about 07:45 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.04.10 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 218 CRM-M-17858-2026(O&M) PM. When we reached the railway bridge, a loaded Traula came from behind and after overtaking me at a high speed and in a negligent manner, intentionally hit the scooter of my wife Reena Rana, who had been driving ahead of me. Due to this, my wife Reena Rana fell from her scooter and came under front left tyre of the said Traula. Due to this, other vehicles travelling at that time bearing No.PB-05-8-9339, PB-05-AH-0871, PB-10-DV-1071, PB- 10-E.J-8038, PB-10-GO-93853 & PB-10-DG-6449 got colllied with each other due to which there was considerable damage. With the help of passerbys, I took up my wife from under the Traula. I noticed the registration number of Traula which was RJ 50-GA-0518 and the driver of the Traula fled from the spot. The passerbys then called ambulance in which I took my wife Reena Rana to Civil Hospital Jagraon, where the doctor declared my wife as brought dead. Thereafter, I kept the dead body of my wife Reena in the mortuary in Civil Hospital Jagraon. This accident was caused deliberately by driver of Traula bearing No. RJ-50- GA-0518, who hit the scooter of my wife in fast, rash and negligent manner. Today, I along with my brother-in-law Ram Lubhaya son of Tilak Raj resident of House No. 1026, College Raod Jagraon District Ludhiana were going to inform you about this accident. Appropriate legal action may kindly be taken against the unknown driver of Traula No. R.J-50-GA-0518.” 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the present FIR has been registered for commission of offence under Section 105 BNS only on account of the complainant’s statement that the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.04.10 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 218 CRM-M-17858-2026(O&M) incident in question had been caused intentionally. It is further contended that if not for the aforesaid expression used by the complainant in the FIR, it would have been a case under Section 106 BNS, which is triable by a Court of Magistrate. He further contends that no motive of any nature whatsoever has been attributed against the petitioner for having committed the act with an intention to cause death. It is further contended that the accident in question took place in a crowded place around Jagraon. It is submitted that the aspect as to whether the petitioner drove in a rash and negligent manner or not, is yet to be determined at the stage of trial. Charges have not yet been framed. The petitioner surrendered before the Court on 12.12.2025 and has already undergone an actual custody of nearly 04 months. It is argued that the petitioner had no motive and in the absence of any motive, there would not have been any intention, apart therefrom the petitioner is not involved in any other incident. 4. Learned State Counsel on the other hand contends that 02 persons have died and the fact that the petitioner ran away from the spot after the incident shows that he had clear intention of committing the offence. 5. Responding to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the act of running away cannot be construed to mean that the incident in question was intended by the petitioner herein. The said aspect is also to be considered to the effect that since the accident took place in a crowded place, the mob could have taken over and there would have been real apprehension to the life of the petitioner herein as well. He further contends that the petitioner had himself surrendered before the Court which shows that he never intended to run away from the spot but had to escape in a bid to save his life. He further contends that there are arguable issues pertaining to the charge and so far even the charge under Section 105 has not been framed. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.04.10 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 218 CRM-M-17858-2026(O&M) There are 29 witnesses to be examined and as such the conclusion of trial shall take long. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition. 7. Taking into consideration that there are arguable issues with respect to whether an offence under Section 105 BNS or Section 106 BNS would be made out or not, coupled with the clean antecedents of the petitioner, the period of custody already undergone by him as well as the stage of trial, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition. 7. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. 9. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 09.04.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.04.10 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document