CRM-M-35871- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (249) SUNIDHI MANOCHA STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The 483 of Bharatiya grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 109, 351(2), 324(4), 191(2) and 190 of B Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) Police Station Jamalpur, District Ludhiana. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of recorded by the complainant Kiran of the present petitioner was living in her neighbourhood and one boy Navyam Chaudhary @ Sidhu used to pick up the petitioner from her house on daily basis and used to drop her back in the evening and then remained present outside the house of the petitioner. Petitioner’s father was offended with the same. On the previous day, brother of the petitioner had told the husband of the complainant -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision : SUNIDHI MANOCHA Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Ashish Soi, Advocate for the petitioner Vivek Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 109, 351(2), 324(4), 191(2) and 190 of B Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act at Police Station Jamalpur, District Ludhiana. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of recorded by the complainant Kiran Garg, alleging therein that of the present petitioner was living in her neighbourhood and one boy Navyam Chaudhary @ Sidhu used to pick up the petitioner from her house on daily basis and used to drop her back in the evening and then remained present outside the se of the petitioner. Petitioner’s father was offended with the same. On the previous day, brother of the petitioner had told the husband of the complainant IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35871-2026(O&M) Date of decision : 15.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner Vivek Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab filed by the petitioner under Section Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.116 dated 12.05.2026 registered under Sections 109, 351(2), 324(4), 191(2) and 190 of Bharatiya and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act at The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement Garg, alleging therein that Raj Kumar, father of the present petitioner was living in her neighbourhood and one boy Navyam Chaudhary @ Sidhu used to pick up the petitioner from her house on daily basis and used to drop her back in the evening and then remained present outside the se of the petitioner. Petitioner’s father was offended with the same. On the previous day, brother of the petitioner had told the husband of the complainant filed by the petitioner under Section seeking 116 dated 12.05.2026 tiya and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act at statement father of the present petitioner was living in her neighbourhood and one boy Navyam Chaudhary @ Sidhu used to pick up the petitioner from her house on daily basis and used to drop her back in the evening and then remained present outside the se of the petitioner. Petitioner’s father was offended with the same. On the previous day, brother of the petitioner had told the husband of the complainant AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.15 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-35871- that he would not allow Navyam same night, the said that time, the complainant Chaudhary had glared towards the complainant and had proclaimed that he will handle her and then he went back. alongwith some other persons had come outside her house while being armed with weapons and opened fire damaging her household articles. By alleging that the petitioner had also a in the occurrence, she prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 16.05.2026. The co concluded. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. She is in custody for a period of about 02 months. She was neither present at the time of occurrence nor there is any material to show that she forme She has been implicated in this case only on account of the fact that the co accused used to pick the occurrence. Her continued detention would not ser Moreover, a compromise has been effected between the parties been mentioned that the petiti statement to this effect argued that she deserves to be released on bail and the petition deserves to be allowed. -2026 (O&M) 2 that he would not allow Navyam Chaudhary @ Sidhu to pick his sister. On the same night, the said Navyam Chaudhary had come to drop the petitioner and at that time, the complainant alongwith her son was Chaudhary had glared towards the complainant and had proclaimed that he will handle her and then he went back. She alleged that the said Navyam alongwith some other persons had come outside her house while being armed with weapons and opened fire, thereby breaking the window panes and damaging her household articles. By alleging that the petitioner had also a in the occurrence, she prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 16.05.2026. The co-accused were also arrested. Investigation now stands It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. She is in custody for a period of about 02 months. She was neither present at the time of occurrence nor there is any material to show that she formed any unlawful assembly with the co She has been implicated in this case only on account of the fact that the co accused used to pick up and drop her at her house. She has no connection with the occurrence. Her continued detention would not ser Moreover, a compromise has been effected between the parties been mentioned that the petitioner has no link to this effect has also been given by the complainant. argued that she deserves to be released on bail and the petition deserves to be Chaudhary @ Sidhu to pick his sister. On the Chaudhary had come to drop the petitioner and at alongwith her son was standing in the street. Navyam Chaudhary had glared towards the complainant and had proclaimed that he will leged that the said Navyam Chaudhary alongwith some other persons had come outside her house while being armed thereby breaking the window panes and damaging her household articles. By alleging that the petitioner had also a hand in the occurrence, she prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on accused were also arrested. Investigation now stands It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. She is in custody for a period of about 02 months. She was neither present at the time of occurrence nor there is any d any unlawful assembly with the co-accused. She has been implicated in this case only on account of the fact that the co- up and drop her at her house. She has no connection with the occurrence. Her continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. Moreover, a compromise has been effected between the parties, wherein it has oner has no link with this case and further a has also been given by the complainant. It is, thus, argued that she deserves to be released on bail and the petition deserves to be Chaudhary @ Sidhu to pick his sister. On the Chaudhary had come to drop the petitioner and at standing in the street. Navyam Chaudhary had glared towards the complainant and had proclaimed that he will Chaudhary alongwith some other persons had come outside her house while being armed thereby breaking the window panes and hand in the occurrence, she prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on accused were also arrested. Investigation now stands It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. She is in custody for a period of about 02 months. She was neither present at the time of occurrence nor there is any accused. - up and drop her at her house. She has no connection with ve any useful purpose. it has a It is, thus, argued that she deserves to be released on bail and the petition deserves to be AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.15 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-35871- 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, she does not deserve allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner is alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, the co Navyam Chaudhary and others are alleged to have opened fire outside the house of the complainant with some firearm with intent to commit her murder and to criminally intimidate her through assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any conclusion as to the petitioner’s being a membership of unlawful assembly can be drawn as admittedly she was not present at the plac complainant has also sworn an affidavit in favour of the petitioner. Though no authenticity whatsoever can be attached to this affidavit at this stage, however, taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody, of the allegations as levelled against her and the circumstances as peculiar to this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that she has made out a case for release on bail. Even otherwise the rule and jail is an exception. Pre post-conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. -2026 (O&M) 3 Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, she does not deserve to be released on bail and the This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly with accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, the co Chaudhary and others are alleged to have opened fire outside the house of the complainant with some firearm with intent to commit her murder and to criminally intimidate her family members and herself. However through assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any conclusion as to the petitioner’s being a membership of unlawful assembly can be drawn as admittedly she was not present at the plac complainant has also sworn an affidavit in favour of the petitioner. Though no authenticity whatsoever can be attached to this affidavit at this stage, however, taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody, of the allegations as levelled against her and the circumstances as peculiar to this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that she has made out a case for release on bail. Even otherwise the well settled the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, she to be released on bail and the petition does not deserve to be This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioner is alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly with accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, the co-accused Chaudhary and others are alleged to have opened fire outside the house of the complainant with some firearm with intent to commit her murder and to ly members and herself. However, it is only on through assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any conclusion as to the petitioner’s being a membership of unlawful assembly can be drawn as admittedly she was not present at the place of occurrence. The complainant has also sworn an affidavit in favour of the petitioner. Though no authenticity whatsoever can be attached to this affidavit at this stage, however, taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody, the nature of the allegations as levelled against her and the circumstances as peculiar to this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that she has made out a case for he well settled proposition of law is that bail is trial incarceration should not be replica of conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Taking into Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, she petition does not deserve to be This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioner is alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly with accused Chaudhary and others are alleged to have opened fire outside the house of the complainant with some firearm with intent to commit her murder and to , it is only on through assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any conclusion as to the petitioner’s being a membership of unlawful assembly can e of occurrence. The complainant has also sworn an affidavit in favour of the petitioner. Though no authenticity whatsoever can be attached to this affidavit at this stage, however, the nature of the allegations as levelled against her and the circumstances as peculiar to this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that she has made out a case for l is trial incarceration should not be replica of conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the Taking into AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.15 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-35871- consideration the above discussed facts, that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed her furnishing pers trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 7. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 15.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 4 ration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to her furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been allowed any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to onal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing allowed pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to onal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for same shall have no bearing pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.15 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.