CRM-M-67067- IN THE H (230) GOPAL KUMAR STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. M Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S at Police Station R 2. As pe some persons had gone there. The person were found took out a pistol fr the complainant. and one unknown upon him with an -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH MAR Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Harlove Singh Rajput, Advocate Mr. Manjot Singh Bhullar, Advocate Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the third petition of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh f regular bail in case arising out of nder Sections 307, 341, 506, 34 of IPC tion Rawalpindi, District Kapurthala. As per the allegations, on 08.12.2022 s had come to his shop to purchase The petitioner alongwith the co-acc found present there. As soon as he istol from his pocket and struck a blow nant. When he tried to run, he was in known youth. Then the co-accused ith an intent to kill him. The bullet h JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-67067-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 04.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
ocate and ocate for the petitioner Punjab etition filed by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.53 dated 08.12.2022 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act thala. 2.2022, on receipt of a message that hase fuel wood, the complainant had accused Sahil and one unknown as he reached there, the petitioner a blow with the same on the head of was intercepted by co-accused Sahil cused Sahil fired a shot with pistol ullet hit his right hand. On clamour M) 2026 nder ) 2022 Act that had own ioner ad of Sahil istol mour AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67067- being raised, the extending threats stands completed. for commission of the petitioner had interim bail of the 3. It is a falsely implicated had not been attrib allegation in the F victim by him and period of over thr no prosecution wit of the cases regist considered to be a would be served incarceration mili conclusion of the been extended be benefit. It is, there 4. Per c and custody certif offender. He ha convicted in one -2025 (O&M) 2 d, the petition alongwith the co-ac hreats to him. He was rushed to the leted. The petitioner alongwith the c sion of aforementioned offences. The had been dismissed as withdrawn of the petitioner had been allowed. t is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. The fire arm inju n attributed to him initially but in the the FIR, it was mentioned that the fir and this fact falsified the prosecutio er three years. The trial will take con ion witness has been examined so far. registered against him. His involvem to be a reason for denying benefit of b served by detaining him in custod n militates against his fundamental r of the trial cannot be attributed to him ed benefit of regular bail. On pari s, therefore, argued that he deserves to Per contra, learned State counsel wh certificate has vehemently argued th He has been involved in several oth one case. There are chances of his accused had fled away, while to the hospital. Investigation now h the co-accused Sahil is facing trial s. The first bail petition as filed by drawn and the second petition for l for the petitioner that he has been injury on the person of the victim in the challan report, contrary to that the fire arm injury was caused to the ecution story. He is in custody for a ke considerable time to conclude as o far. He has been acquitted in three volvement in other cases cannot be of bail to him. No useful purpose custody anymore. His prolonged ental right to liberty. The delay in to him. The co-accused has already n parity, he too deserves the same ves to be released on bail. el while relying on the status report ued that the petitioner is a habitual ral other cases and has even been his absconding, intimidating the hile now trial d by for been ictim that o the for a de as three ot be pose nged y in eady same eport itual been g the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67067- witnesses or com therefore, argued t 5. This parties. 6. The p shots with pistol o of the complainan him which had inj first instance. Ho complainant or an petitioner who had complainant. As produced during t injury to victim ca Not even a single far and there is n witnesses is attrib well-settled law t bail, has to keep c case or reasonable circumstances whi repeated, the natur the event of conv released on bail, a -2025 (O&M) 3 r committing similar offences, if ext gued that the petition does not deserve This Court has heard the rival sub The petitioner alongwith the co-acc istol on the complainant with an inten lainant was that it was the co-accused ad injured him and the petitioner had e. However, without recording any su t or any other witness, the challan re ho had fired a shot from his pistol, the As such it is only on thorough a ring trial that any conclusion as to th ctim can be drawn. He is in custody single witness out of 11 prosecution w re is no material on record to show attributable to any act or conduct o law that the Court, while considerin keep certain factors in mind such as onable ground to believe that the accus es which are peculiar to the accused, l e nature and gravity of the accusation, f conviction, the danger of the accu bail, and reasonable apprehension of t if extended benefit of bail. It is, eserve to be allowed. It is, eserve to be allowed. al submissions made by both the accused is alleged to have fired intent to kill him. The first version cused Sahil who had fired shot upon r had not fired shot upon him at the any supplementary statement of the llan report mentions that it was the tol, thereby injuring right hand of the ough assessment of evidence to be s to the petitioner’s causing firearm stody for over a period of 03 years. tion witnesses has been examined so show that delay in producing the duct of the present petitioner. It is sidering an application for grant of ch as whether there is a prima facie e accused has committed the offence, used, likelihood of the offence being sation, severity of the punishment in e accused absconding or fleeing if on of the witnesses being threatened, It is, the fired rsion upon t the f the s the f the o be earm ears. ed so the It is nt of facie ence, eing nt in ng if ned, AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67067- etc. However, at factor to be consi accused charged w catena of cases tha of time, and the ba filed repeatedly. provide a new c circumstances. Th law prefers bail o requirements of t placed on the obse @ Hussain v. Stat observed that th often than not, app are more likely to upon Manmandal (Criminal) No. 86 of Odisha, 2023 L who had been inca was likely to take generally militates Article 21 of the C 7. On an case in the light o petitioner has suff -2025 (O&M) 4 er, at the same time, the period of in considered while deciding whether rged with an offence. The Hon’ble A ses that an accused cannot be kept in c the bail application can be considered edly. It has also been held that eve new cause of action for filing a b es. This principle is a part of the broad bail over jail, aiming to balance the s of the criminal justice system. R e observations made by the Hon’ble A . State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC O at the jails are overcrowded and the ot, appalling. The danger of unjustified ely to be hardened rather than reforme ndal and Another v. State of West B o. 8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.20 023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein ba en incarcerated for a period of almost o take considerable time, by observin 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 d of incarceration is also a relevant hether bail should be granted to an ’ble Apex Court has observed in a pt in custody for an indefinite period sidered on its own merits even if it is at every day spent in custody can g a bail application under certain e broader approach emphasizing that e the rights of the accused with the Reliance in this regard can be n’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim C OnLine SC 352, wherein it was nd their living conditions are, more ustified imprisonment is that inmates eformed. Reliance can also be placed est Bengal, Special Leave Petition 09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State rein bail was granted to the accused lmost two to three years and the trial serving that prolonged incarceration s fundamental right guaranteed under ts and circumstances of the present nciples of law, it transpires that the tion for a period of 03 years and 08 vant o an in a eriod f it is can rtain that h the n be lim t was more ates laced ion ate used trial ation nder esent t the 08 AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67067- days. The trial i detention of the pe nothing on record participate in the t bail is the rule and be a replica of pos discussed facts, th bail to the petition petitioner is order well as surety bon Magistrate/Duty M 8. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 9. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 10. Since any, is rendered in 04.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 5 trial is not likely to be concluded the petitioner is not likely to serve an record to show that if released on n the trial or will abscond. It is well ule and jail is an exception and that p of post-conviction sentencing. Takin this Court is of the opinion that a etitioner at this stage. Accordingly, t ordered to be released on bail subjec ty bonds to the satisfaction of the lea uty Magistrate concerned. 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
  
luded in near future; the continued rve any fruitful purpose and there is ed on bail, the petitioner will not s well settled proposition of law that that pre-trial incarceration shall not Taking into consideration the above that a case is made out for grant of ngly, the petition is allowed and the subject to his furnishing personal as he learned trial Court/Chief Judicial 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.
een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
nued re is l not t l not bove nt of d the al as icial t the g an l not case f AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.