CRM-M-51698 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 204 Ranjit Singh @ Ranjit Singh Patwari State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Mr. AMAN CHAUDHARY, 1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. registered under Section by Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 468, 471, 120- Amritsar. 2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for little over 3 months. as Patwari’s have months vide orde besides Sukhev Singh framed on 25.08.2025 and in all there are 20 prosecution witness in other case under Section 304 IPC, wherein he is on bail. 51698-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ranjit Singh @ Ranjit Singh Patwari Versus HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition filed under Section for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 -B IPC, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for months. Similarly circumstanced co ’s have been granted regular bail after being in custody of about 2 months vide orders dated 13.12.2022 and 22.12.2022 Sukhev Singh and Sukhjit Singh on 24.01.2023 framed on 25.08.2025 and in all there are 20 prosecution witness in other case under Section 304 IPC, wherein he is on bail. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-51698-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.09.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY , Advocate for the petitioner. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.20 dated 19.10.2022 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Sections 420, 465, 466, Vigilance Bureau, Range, District Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for circumstanced co-accused who were also working regular bail after being in custody of about 2 s dated 13.12.2022 and 22.12.2022 (Annexures P5 and P6) Sukhjit Singh on 24.01.2023. Charges have been framed on 25.08.2025 and in all there are 20 prosecution witnesses. He is involved in other case under Section 304 IPC, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on 483 BNSS, 2023, is 19.10.2022, of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended and Sections 420, 465, 466, District Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for a accused who were also working regular bail after being in custody of about 2 (Annexures P5 and P6) have been es. He is involved liance is placed on ASHOK KUMAR 2025.09.19 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51698-2025 -2- the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. 3. The custody certificate dated 18.09.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 3 months and 9 days. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having changed entries in the revenue record for the benefit of certain persons. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case, he being on bail in other case and co- accused having been granted bail. 5. Heard. 6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for last 3 months and 9 days; on bail in other case; co- accused have been granted bail; Charges have recently been framed on 25.08.2025 and there are a total of 20 prosecution witnesses, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed. 8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate ASHOK KUMAR 2025.09.19 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51698-2025 -3- concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court. (viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 19.09.2025 ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.09.19 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document