IN THE 210 Lakhvir Singh State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Ms. Ms. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The Bharatiya Nagarik petitioner in case Section 127(2), Sanhita, 2023 at 2. Briefly record, is that the Singh, son of Bhag and was acquainted were in contact with them over Sarabjit Kaur called intended to go to vehicle to pick them and Gurpreet Singh Sarabjit Kaur and THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-71490 Date of decision: VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate, for Ms. Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab. ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant first petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for case bearing FIR No.363 dated 08.08.2025 127(2), 303(2), 308(2), 351(2), 61(2) at Police Station City Barnala. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, the present FIR was lodged on Bhag Singh, who stated that he is acquainted with one Gurpreet Singh. It contact with Sarabjit Kaur and Harjit the phone. According to the complainant, called him and informed that she, to Barnala and asked him to reach them up from the bus stop. Pursuant Singh reached the Vaddi Kheri bus and Harjit Kaur boarded the vehicle. PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 71490-2025(O&M) decision: 23.12.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ for the petitioner. filed under Section 483 of the grant of regular bail to the 08.08.2025 registered under 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya case, as emerging from the the statement of Kulwinder engaged in agricultural work It is stated that both of them Kaur and used to converse complainant, on 18.07.2025, she, along with Harjit Kaur, reach near Vaddi Kheri with a Pursuant thereto, the complainant bus stop in a Swift car, where vehicle. On reaching near ITI SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.23 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 210 CRM-M-71490-2025(O&M) Chowk, Barnala, the two women disclosed that they had recorded a video while sitting in the car and threatened to settle the matter, failing which the video would be made viral. It is further stated that the complainant and Gurpreet Singh were taken to a house situated on Khuddi Road, where another woman aged about 30–32 years was present. In the meantime, two young men along with Shinder Kaur arrived in a Swift car and scuffled with the complainant party. Their mobile phones were snatched, along with cash amounting to Rs.13,000/- from the complainant and Rs.7,000/- from Gurpreet Singh. The keys of the complainant’s vehicle were also taken, and videos were recorded. A demand of Rs.10 lakhs was raised, coupled with threats of registering a case and circulating the video on social media. The complainant further stated that the matter was eventually settled for Rs.5 lakhs, for which time was sought to arrange the amount. It is stated that they were taken to the Court at Barnala, where two stamp papers were purchased under threat and their signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers. Thereafter, the complainant and Gurpreet Singh arranged Rs.5 lakhs and paid the said amount on 24.07.2025 at the house of Shinder Kaur. Subsequently, Shinder Kaur continued to issue threats over the phone and demanded an additional sum of Rs.2 lakhs, failing which legal proceedings were threatened. On these allegations, it was asserted that the accused persons had formed a gang and were engaged in extorting money from innocent persons by alluring and threatening them. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the present FIR came to be registered. During the course of investigation, Karamjit Kaur was nominated as an accused on 23.08.2025 vide DDR No. 23, and thereafter, Jagtar Singh @ Kala and Lakhvir Singh @ Kheera were also nominated as accused on 04.09.2025 vide DDR No. 21. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.23 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 210 CRM-M-71490-2025(O&M) 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the disclosure statement of co-accused and vide DDR No.21. She further contends that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner and no recovery of any nature whatsoever is effected from the petitioner. Besides, the trial is still at an initial stage. 4. Learned State Counsel does not dispute that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner and that no recovery of any nature whatsoever is effected from the petitioner. It is however contended that on competition of the investigation a final report has been filed on 07.11.2025. A total of 17 witnesses are stated to have been cited by the prosecution but the charge has not been framed yet. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition. 6. Taking into consideration the absence of any specific role; absence of recovery; the period of custody already undergone and the stage of proceedings before the Trial Court, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition. 7. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.23 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 210 CRM-M-71490-2025(O&M) 9. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 23.12.2025 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.23 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document