CRM-M-32556- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (245) VISHAL KUMAR STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. (through video conferencing) Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. under Sections 61(2), 216, 318(4), 336(3), 337, 338, 339, 340(2) of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) District Hoshiarpur. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the al Gurpreet Singh @ Kaka, who was in custody as an accused in connection with case arising out of FIR No.48 dated 06.06.2024 registered under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur, had been admitted to bail by the Trial Court on 03.10.2024 subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Court. Surety bonds on his behalf were furnished by one Bhupinder Kumar, who -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VISHAL KUMAR Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. N.S. Sindher, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing) Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in case arising out of FIR No.193 dated 22.10.2024 registered under Sections 61(2), 216, 318(4), 336(3), 337, 338, 339, 340(2) of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the al Gurpreet Singh @ Kaka, who was in custody as an accused in connection with case arising out of FIR No.48 dated 06.06.2024 registered under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur, had been bail by the Trial Court on 03.10.2024 subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Court. Surety bonds on his behalf were furnished by one Bhupinder Kumar, who IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32556-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 193 dated 22.10.2024 registered under Sections 61(2), 216, 318(4), 336(3), 337, 338, 339, 340(2) of Bharatiya at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, The aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that one Gurpreet Singh @ Kaka, who was in custody as an accused in connection with case arising out of FIR No.48 dated 06.06.2024 registered under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur, had been bail by the Trial Court on 03.10.2024 subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Court. Surety bonds on his behalf were furnished by one Bhupinder Kumar, who was identified by (O&M) 2026 under Section for grant 193 dated 22.10.2024 registered Bharatiya at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, legations that one Gurpreet Singh @ Kaka, who was in custody as an accused in connection with case arising out of FIR No.48 dated 06.06.2024 registered under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur, had been bail by the Trial Court on 03.10.2024 subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Court. Surety bonds identified by AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.04 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-32556- one Sukhjit Kumar. The surety had subm 2020-2021 to prove his ownership qua some agricultural land. When the Reader of the concerned Court verified the details of that jamabandi, it was disclosed that the father’s the jamabandi. Manjit Singh, Lambardar, who had stood as identifier also failed to disclose true particulars. Since it was evident that the above Bhupinder Kumar had used a false identity, he alongwith Manjit Singh, Lambardar and attesting witness Sukhjit Singh was found to be involved in the offence of cheating the Court. As per the directions passed by the Trial Court, FIR was registered against them. Investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that the person name as Bhupinder Kumar was Gursharan Singh had impersonated himself as attesting witness Sukhjit Kumar whereas Manjit Singh was also not a Lambardar and had used a fake aad and identity card. The petitioner was arrested on 25.10.2024. Subsequently, other accused were also arrested. Investigation now stands concluded. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this take considerable time to conclude as only 03 out of 25 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. His further incarceration would not serve any involvement in other cases, he cannot be denied benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserve to be allowed. -2026 (O&M) 2 one Sukhjit Kumar. The surety had submitted a copy of jamabandi for the year 2021 to prove his ownership qua some agricultural land. When the Reader of the concerned Court verified the details of that jamabandi, it was disclosed name of the surety did not match with the p the jamabandi. Manjit Singh, Lambardar, who had stood as identifier also failed to disclose true particulars. Since it was evident that the above Bhupinder Kumar had used a false identity, he alongwith Manjit Singh, d attesting witness Sukhjit Singh was found to be involved in the offence of cheating the Court. As per the directions passed by the Trial Court, FIR was registered against them. Investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that the person who presented himself as surety by claiming his name as Bhupinder Kumar was infact the present petitioner and accused Gursharan Singh had impersonated himself as attesting witness Sukhjit Kumar whereas Manjit Singh was also not a Lambardar and had used a fake aad and identity card. The petitioner was arrested on 25.10.2024. Subsequently, other accused were also arrested. Investigation now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 25.10.2024. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 03 out of 25 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. On account of his involvement in other cases, he cannot be denied benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserve to be allowed. itted a copy of jamabandi for the year 2021 to prove his ownership qua some agricultural land. When the Reader of the concerned Court verified the details of that jamabandi, it was disclosed name of the surety did not match with the particulars given in the jamabandi. Manjit Singh, Lambardar, who had stood as identifier also failed to disclose true particulars. Since it was evident that the above-named Bhupinder Kumar had used a false identity, he alongwith Manjit Singh, d attesting witness Sukhjit Singh was found to be involved in the offence of cheating the Court. As per the directions passed by the Trial Court, FIR was registered against them. Investigation proceedings were initiated. It who presented himself as surety by claiming his the present petitioner and accused Gursharan Singh had impersonated himself as attesting witness Sukhjit Kumar whereas Manjit Singh was also not a Lambardar and had used a fake aadhar card and identity card. The petitioner was arrested on 25.10.2024. Subsequently, other accused were also arrested. Investigation now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been case. He is in custody since 25.10.2024. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 03 out of 25 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. His useful purpose. On account of his involvement in other cases, he cannot be denied benefit of bail. It is, thus, itted a copy of jamabandi for the year 2021 to prove his ownership qua some agricultural land. When the Reader of the concerned Court verified the details of that jamabandi, it was disclosed articulars given in the jamabandi. Manjit Singh, Lambardar, who had stood as identifier also failed named Bhupinder Kumar had used a false identity, he alongwith Manjit Singh, d attesting witness Sukhjit Singh was found to be involved in the offence of cheating the Court. As per the directions passed by the Trial Court, FIR was registered against them. Investigation proceedings were initiated. It who presented himself as surety by claiming his the present petitioner and accused Gursharan Singh had impersonated himself as attesting witness Sukhjit Kumar har card and identity card. The petitioner was arrested on 25.10.2024. Subsequently, It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been case. He is in custody since 25.10.2024. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 03 out of 25 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. His useful purpose. On account of his involvement in other cases, he cannot be denied benefit of bail. It is, thus, AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.04 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-32556- 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and while placing on record the custody certificate, he has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature, as he had impersonated himself as some other person and by relying upon false documents had appeared surety to the accused in c chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival su for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences of cheating and forgery by impersonating himself as some other person and standing as surety before the Judicial Magistra No.48. The allegations levelled against him make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences over a period of 01 year and 08 months. The trial will t conclude as substantial number of witnesses is yet to be examined. The subject offences are triable bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre replica of post- appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Keeping in view the above discussed facts, this Court is of the con opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, -2026 (O&M) 3 Notice of motion. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and while lacing on record the custody certificate, he has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature, as he had impersonated himself as some other person and by relying upon false documents had appeared surety to the accused in case bearing FIR No.48. He is a habitual offender. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed 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 is alleged to have committed the offences of cheating and forgery by impersonating himself as some other person and standing as surety before the Judicial Magistrate, who was dealing with the case bearing FIR No.48. The allegations levelled against him make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences. However, now he has remained in custody for over a period of 01 year and 08 months. The trial will t conclude as substantial number of witnesses is yet to be examined. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. The well settled bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial incarceration s -conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Keeping in view the above discussed facts, this Court is of the con at the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and while lacing on record the custody certificate, he has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature, as he had impersonated himself as some other person and by relying upon false documents had appeared surety FIR No.48. He is a habitual offender. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. bmissions made by learned counsel The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences of cheating and forgery by impersonating himself as some other person and standing as te, who was dealing with the case bearing FIR No.48. The allegations levelled against him make out a prima facie case for owever, now he has remained in custody for over a period of 01 year and 08 months. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as substantial number of witnesses is yet to be examined. The subject The well settled proposition of law is that trial incarceration should not be conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Keeping in view the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered at the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and while lacing on record the custody certificate, he has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature, as he had impersonated himself as some other person and by relying upon false documents had appeared surety FIR No.48. He is a habitual offender. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bmissions made by learned counsel The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences of cheating and forgery by impersonating himself as some other person and standing as te, who was dealing with the case bearing FIR No.48. The allegations levelled against him make out a prima facie case for owever, now he has remained in custody for ake considerable time to conclude as substantial number of witnesses is yet to be examined. The subject of law is that hould not be conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. sidered at the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.04 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-32556- the petition is allowed to his furnishing personal as well as learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned subject to the following conditions : (i) circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (ii) The petitioner shall appear befor hearing unless his presen learned Trial Court. (iii present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds informing the trial Court. (i 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 cas 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 learned tr 8. Breach of any of the above conditions shal cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. -2026 (O&M) 4 the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as 02 surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned subject to the following conditions :- (i) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (ii) The petitioner shall appear befor hearing unless his presence is specifically exempted by the learned Trial Court. (iii) 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. iv) 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 cas 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 learned trial Court. Breach of any of the above conditions shal cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and The petitioner shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of is specifically exempted by the ) The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of 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 Breach of any of the above conditions shall be a ground for and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject surety bonds to the satisfaction of the and The petitioner shall not leave the country under any each and every date of is specifically exempted by the ) The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of 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 e, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and (vi) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the l be a ground for AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.04 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-32556- 9. 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. 10. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 03.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 5 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. Since the main petition has been al any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No 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 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 pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.04 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.