CRM-M-68801- IN THE H (242) NARESH KUMA STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. V Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S 452, 411 of IPC a Police Station Ajn was dismissed as w 2. The a filed by the comp 29.03.2024, he ha He was going tow hold of by three y -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH UMAR Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS . Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the second petition of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of nder Sections 392, 342, 506, 120B a IPC added later on and Section 25 of on Ajnala, Amritsar. The first petition ed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.0 The aforementioned FIR was register complainant Surinderpal Sehgal all he had taken out his scooter from hi towards his house after bringing t hree youths who were having their fac JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-68801-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
or the petitioner Punjab petition filed by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.52 dated 29.03.2024 20B and 395 of IPC (Sections 451, 25 of Arms Act deleted later on) at etition bearing CRM-M-43906-2024 d 24.09.2024. egistered on the basis of a complaint gal alleging that in the morning of om his house and parked it outside. ging the keys when he was caught eir faces covered. They pulled him M) 2026 oner
dent
nder ) 2024 451, n) at 2024 int g of side. ught him AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.17 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68801- inside his house, almirahs from him tied his limbs. On them, if they resi house, took out c therein and after them. After regist 3. As p information was Ashok Kumar and occurrence. They accused were arre Rs.11,70,000/- ou of the disclosure completed and th commission of afo 4. It is a falsely implicated had been attributed co-accused is false The trial will tak prosecution witne The co-accused A Amarjit Kaur @ P -2025 (O&M) 2 ouse, bolted the main door and sta m him. They closed the mouth of hi bs. One of them pointed a pistol towa y resisted. They had broken the loc out cash amounting to Rs.15-16 la after ransacking the entire house, le registration of FIR, investigation proc As per the further allegations, du was received that the accused Paw ar and Naresh Kumar i.e. the present p They were nominated as accused. re arrested on 02.04.2024 and recov out of looted money had been eff losure statements suffered by them and the petitioner alongwith the of aforementioned offences. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. He was not name ributed to him. The recovery planted u is false one and in fact no recovery ha ill take considerable time to conclu witnesses have been examined so fa sed Amarjit Kaur, Ashok, Monika Sha r @ Preet Ali have already been exten nd started demanding keys of the h of his wife Veena with a tape and towards him and threatened to kill he lock of the almirahs kept in the 16 lakhs and gold jewellery kept use, left while extending threats to n proceedings were initiated. ns, during investigation, a secret d Pawan Sharma, Gurpreet Singh, esent petitioner were involved in the cused. The petitioner and the co- recovery of total cash amount of en effected from them in pursuance them. Investigation now stands co-accused is facing trial for l for the petitioner that he has been t named in the FIR. No specific act anted upon him jointly alongwith the ery has been effected at his instance. conclude since only 04 out of 23 so far. He has clean antecedents. ika Sharma, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, extended benefit of bail. On parity, f the and kill n the kept ts to ecret ingh, n the - nt of ance tands l for been c act h the ance. f 23 ents. opi, arity, AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.17 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68801- he too deserves to petition deserves t 5. Learn has argued that t levelled against th It is, therefore, stre 6. This C for both the parties 7. The a conspiracy and i house of the com year 10 months a while considering mind such as whet that the accused h the accused, likeli the accusation, sev of the accused a apprehension of th the period of inc deciding whether The Hon’ble Ape cannot be kept i application can be -2025 (O&M) 3 ves to be extended the same benefit. erves to be allowed. Learned State counsel while placing that taking into consideration the inst the petitioner, he does not deserve re, stressed that the petition does not d This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner alongwith the co-accu and in pursuance thereof alleged to e complainant. The petitioner’s incar nths and 03 days as on date. It is w dering an application for grant of bail, s whether there is a prima facie case o used has committed the offence, circum , likelihood of the offence being repea n, severity of the punishment in the e sed absconding or fleeing if relea n of the witnesses being threatened, et of incarceration is also a relevant f ether bail should be granted to an acc e Apex Court has observed in a cat kept in custody for an indefinite p can be considered on its own merits e nefit. It is, therefore, argued that the lacing reliance on custody certificate the gravity of the allegations as eserve to be extended benefit of bail. s not deserve to be allowed. ubmissions made by learned counsel accused is alleged to have hatched ed to have committed dacoity at the incarceration is for a period of 01 It is well-settled law that the Court, f bail, has to keep certain factors in case or reasonable ground to believe circumstances which are peculiar to g repeated, the nature and gravity of n the event of conviction, the danger released on bail, and reasonable ned, etc. However, at the same time, vant factor to be considered while an accused charged with an offence. a catena of cases that an accused inite period of time, and the bail erits even if it is filed repeatedly. It t the icate s as bail. unsel ched t the 01 ourt, rs in lieve iar to ty of nger able time, hile ence. used bail ly. It AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.17 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68801- has also been held action for filing a a part of the broad to balance the righ system. Reliance i Hon’ble Apex Co 2023 SCC OnLi overcrowded and t danger of unjusti hardened rather th and Another v. S 8656 of 2023 dec 2023 SCC OnLin been incarcerated likely to take co generally militates Article 21 of the C 8. On an case in the light o petitioner has suff months and 03 da only 04 out of 2 continued detentio -2025 (O&M) 4 n held that every day spent in custod ling a bail application under certain ci broader approach emphasizing that la he rights of the accused with the requi iance in this regard can be placed on x Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Huss nLine SC 352, wherein it was d and their living conditions are, more unjustified imprisonment is that inm ther than reformed. Reliance can also v. State of West Bengal, Special L decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabdi nLine SC 110, wherein bail was gr erated for a period of almost two to ke considerable time. By observing ilitates against the most precious funda f the Constitution. On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle as suffered prolonged incarceration fo days. The trial is not likely to b t of 24 prosecution witnesses have etention of the petitioner is not likely custody can provide a new cause of rtain circumstances. This principle is that law prefers bail over jail, aiming requirements of the criminal justice ed on the observations made by the Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), t was observed that the jails are , more often than not, appalling. The at inmates are more likely to be n also be placed upon Manmandal ial Leave Petition (Criminal) No. abdi Prakash v. State of Odisha, as granted to the accused who had wo to three years and the trial was erving that prolonged incarceration s fundamental right guaranteed under ts and circumstances of the present nciples of law, it transpires that the tion for over a period of 01 year, 10 ly to be concluded in near future as have been examined so far. The likely to serve any fruitful purpose; se of le is ming stice y the hi), are . The o be dal No. ha, had was ation nder esent t the 10 re as The pose; AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.17 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68801- there is nothing on participate in the t 9. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 10. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 11. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 12. Since any, is rendered in 16.02.2026 Amit Sharma


-2025 (O&M) 5 ing on record to show that if released n the trial or will abscond. In view of the above discussion, this e out for grant of bail to the petitioner llowed and the petitioner is ordered to g personal as well as surety bonds to hief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistr In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of 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 all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

leased on bail, the petitioner will not n, this Court is of the opinion that a itioner at this stage. Accordingly, the ered to be released on bail subject to nds to the satisfaction of the learned agistrate concerned. y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an 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
ll not hat a , the ct to rned t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.17 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.