211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SAURAV VIRDI STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. registered under Sections (Sections 140(3), 331(3), 305 of BNS, 2 Sadar, Jalandhar. 2. As per prosecution version, on 29.10.2024 SI Suresh Kumar along with police party was present at Bus Stop, Jamsher, where he secret information that accused Saurav various cases, is coming towards Jamsher in a Tata Harrier vehicle of black colour without number plate. If a Elementary School, he can be apprehended. Thereafter, a said place was laid and at about 2:40 P.M, the above IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SAURAV VIRDI V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Nitin Narula, Advocate for Mr. Sumit Dua, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. registered under Sections 324(2), 304(2), 317(2), 109, 281 140(3), 331(3), 305 of BNS, 2023 added later on) Jalandhar. As per prosecution version, on 29.10.2024 SI Suresh Kumar along with police party was present at Bus Stop, Jamsher, where he secret information that accused Saurav (petitioner herein) various cases, is coming towards Jamsher in a Tata Harrier vehicle of black colour without number plate. If a naka is laid at 'T' point near Government Elementary School, he can be apprehended. Thereafter, a was laid and at about 2:40 P.M, the above IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1600-2025 Date of decision: 28.05.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.217 dated 29.10.2024 324(2), 304(2), 317(2), 109, 281 of BNS, 2023 added later on) at Police Station As per prosecution version, on 29.10.2024 SI Suresh Kumar along with police party was present at Bus Stop, Jamsher, where he received a (petitioner herein), who is involved in various cases, is coming towards Jamsher in a Tata Harrier vehicle of black is laid at 'T' point near Government Elementary School, he can be apprehended. Thereafter, a naka at the above- was laid and at about 2:40 P.M, the above-said vehicle was seen MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-1600-2025 coming. The police party tried to stop it and the driver of the above vehicle slowed it down. When ASI Hajit Singh came towards the vehicle, the driver reversed it and hit the vehicle in ASI H the vehicle over SI Suresh Kumar and ASI Harjit Singh with an intention to kill them but they saved themselves. He hit his vehicle in the government vehicle and thereafter, sped away the vehicle towards Jalandhar Ca to stop the said vehicle, SI vehicle and its tyre vehicle and he Thereafter, the driver of the abov Road and on enquiry, he disclosed his name as Saurav son of Sukhwinder Lal. From his search, one I abovesaid I-phone was snatched by him fr 22.10.2024. Thereafter, present FIR was registered under Section 304(2), 317(2), 109, 281 BNS. offence under Section 140(3) BNS was added in the FIR through DDR No.19 dated 31.10. statement, wherein he disclosed that the recovered Tata Harrier was stolen from Cosmo Tata Motors, National Highway. Thereafter, vide dated 01.11.2024, offences under Section 331(3) and 305 the FIR. Above accused also got recovered one Audi car and one Pikka make Tata Xenon bearing No.PB08 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner has been falsely implicated and no offence under S BNS, 2023 is made out as it is a case of no injury. Further, the case set up by 2025 2 coming. The police party tried to stop it and the driver of the above vehicle slowed it down. When ASI Hajit Singh came towards the vehicle, the driver reversed it and hit the vehicle in ASI Harjit Singh. the vehicle over SI Suresh Kumar and ASI Harjit Singh with an intention to kill them but they saved themselves. He hit his vehicle in the government vehicle and thereafter, sped away the vehicle towards Jalandhar Ca to stop the said vehicle, SI Suresh Kumar fired a gunshot in the tyre of the said vehicle and its tyre was punctured but its driver fled away from the spot in the also hit the vehicle in various other vehicles on the road. driver of the above vehicle was apprehended on Haq Road and on enquiry, he disclosed his name as Saurav son of Sukhwinder Lal. From his search, one I-phone was recovered and he disclosed that the phone was snatched by him fr Thereafter, present FIR was registered under Section 304(2), 317(2), 109, 281 BNS. Petitioner was arrested. During investigation, offence under Section 140(3) BNS was added in the FIR through DDR No.19 dated 31.10.2024. On 01.11.2024, petitioner statement, wherein he disclosed that the recovered Tata Harrier was stolen from Cosmo Tata Motors, National Highway. Thereafter, vide dated 01.11.2024, offences under Section 331(3) and 305 the FIR. Above accused also got recovered one Audi car and one Pikka make Tata Xenon bearing No.PB08-EC-1729. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner has been falsely implicated and no offence under S BNS, 2023 is made out as it is a case of no injury. Further, the case set up by coming. The police party tried to stop it and the driver of the above vehicle slowed it down. When ASI Hajit Singh came towards the vehicle, the driver arjit Singh. Thereafter, he tried to run the vehicle over SI Suresh Kumar and ASI Harjit Singh with an intention to kill them but they saved themselves. He hit his vehicle in the government vehicle and thereafter, sped away the vehicle towards Jalandhar Cantt. In order Suresh Kumar fired a gunshot in the tyre of the said was punctured but its driver fled away from the spot in the also hit the vehicle in various other vehicles on the road. e vehicle was apprehended on Haqiqat Rai Road and on enquiry, he disclosed his name as Saurav son of Sukhwinder Lal. phone was recovered and he disclosed that the phone was snatched by him from Amanpreet Singh on Thereafter, present FIR was registered under Sections 324(2), was arrested. During investigation, offence under Section 140(3) BNS was added in the FIR through DDR petitioner suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he disclosed that the recovered Tata Harrier was stolen from Cosmo Tata Motors, National Highway. Thereafter, vide DDR No.18 dated 01.11.2024, offences under Section 331(3) and 305 BNS were added in the FIR. Above accused also got recovered one Audi car and one Pikka make Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and no offence under Section 109 of BNS, 2023 is made out as it is a case of no injury. Further, the case set up by MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-1600-2025 the prosecution is highly improbable. Prior to registration of FIR petitioner was involved only in one case and that case was not pertaining to the theft of any vehicle. And till date no complaint has been filed by anybody regarding the theft of vehicle against the petitioner. The investigation of the case is complete. Moreover, trial of the case has not made any progress as out of 21 witnesses cited b 4. Learned State counsel petitioner, which is taken on record. by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that registered on the basis of secret information and petitioner had tried to run over the vehicle over the police party when he was signaled to stop and he is also involved in one more case. Moreover, the offences under Sections 132 and 221 of BNS 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has placed on record the copy of the final report, in which, the aforementioned sections have been mentioned. Learned counsel prays f under Sections 132 and 221 of BNS, 2023 in the head clause of the present petition. 6. Upon oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the offences under Sections 132 and 221 of BNS, 2023 are the head-note as well as in the prayer clause. necessary corrections. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is b 04.11.2024. Investigation is complete. 2025 3 the prosecution is highly improbable. Prior to registration of FIR petitioner was involved only in one case and that case was not pertaining to heft of any vehicle. And till date no complaint has been filed by anybody regarding the theft of vehicle against the petitioner. The investigation of the case is complete. Moreover, trial of the case has not made any progress as out of 21 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined so far earned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. Per contra, by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that registered on the basis of secret information and petitioner had tried to run over the vehicle over the police party when he was signaled to stop and he is also involved in one more case. Moreover, the offences under Sections 132 and 221 of BNS, 2023 have been added vide DDR No.26 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has placed on record the copy of the final report, in which, the aforementioned sections have been mentioned. Learned counsel prays f under Sections 132 and 221 of BNS, 2023 in the head clause of the present petition. Upon oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the offences under Sections 132 and 221 of BNS, 2023 are note as well as in the prayer clause. Registry is directed to make the necessary corrections. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is b . Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 the prosecution is highly improbable. Prior to registration of FIR (supra), the petitioner was involved only in one case and that case was not pertaining to heft of any vehicle. And till date no complaint has been filed by anybody regarding the theft of vehicle against the petitioner. The investigation of the case is complete. Moreover, trial of the case has not made any progress as out y the prosecution, none has been examined so far. produces the custody certificate of the Per contra, he opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that FIR (supra) was registered on the basis of secret information and petitioner had tried to run over the vehicle over the police party when he was signaled to stop and he is also involved in one more case. Moreover, the offences under Sections 132 , 2023 have been added vide DDR No.26 dated 28.12.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has placed on record the copy of the final report, in which, the aforementioned sections have been mentioned. Learned counsel prays for inclusion of offences under Sections 132 and 221 of BNS, 2023 in the head-note as well as prayer Upon oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the offences under Sections 132 and 221 of BNS, 2023 are ordered to be added in Registry is directed to make the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since The final report under Section 173 MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-1600-2025 Cr.P.C. was presented before the take long time as out of 21 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined till date. trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention prospect of the trial being concl his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Antil vs. CBI”, (2022) 10 SCC 51, conditions of undertria “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of l used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.” 9. In view of the discussion above, the present petition is Accordingly, without namely Saurav Virdi of the trial, on his furnishing bail Illaqa Magistrate/Trial 2025 4 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. take long time as out of 21 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been amined till date. The culpability, if any, would be trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Antil vs. CBI”, (2022) 10 SCC 51, conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of ffence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of l used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.” In view of the discussion above, the present petition is Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, Saurav Virdi is ordered to be released on of the trial, on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. concerned Court. Trial of the case is likely to take long time as out of 21 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the uded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI”, (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing l prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of ffence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.” In view of the discussion above, the present petition is allowed. commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail during pendency bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-1600-2025 10. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own may prejudice the trial. May 28, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2025 5 Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own may prejudice the trial. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment