CRM-M-53347-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 SHUBHAM ALIAS S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE M Present: Mr. Ms. Akanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab Mr. Darpan Bansal, Advocate for the complainant. KIRTI SINGH CRM-2728-2026 This complainant and victim recorded Annexure P-7 an For the reasons stated in the statements of the complainant an taken on record as Annexure P MAIN CASE 1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53347 DATE OF DECISION: SHUBHAM ALIAS SHUBHAM SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Bachanpreet Singh, Advocate for the Ms. Akanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab Mr. Darpan Bansal, Advocate for the complainant. KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 2026 This application is for placing on record the statements of complainant and victim recorded before the Trial Court 7 and P-8. For the reasons stated in the application statements of the complainant and the victim recorded taken on record as Annexure P-7 and P-8 subject to all just exceptions. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 53347-2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 10.03.2026 … Petitioner ... Respondents KIRTI SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Akanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Darpan Bansal, Advocate for the complainant. is for placing on record the statements of Trial Court which are annexed as application, the same is allowed. T recorded before the Trial Court are 8 subject to all just exceptions. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.238 dated is for placing on record the statements of e annexed as The are The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has dated SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53347-2025 17.06.2025 under Sections Station City Kharar 2. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below: 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner, who is 25 years old, admittedly well been falsely implicated 2025 (O&M) -2- under Sections 137(2) and 87 of BNS, 2023 City Kharar District S.A.S. Nagar. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below: “Copy of Statement, Jaswinder Singh R/o Ward No.6 Kurali near Petrol Pump, Police Station City Kurali district SAS Nagar aged around 35 years Mobile no.98771 xxx stated that address and she is a housewife. I Jaswinder Singh r/o Ward No.6 Kurali, Distt. SAS Nagar and I was earlier married Jarnail Singh S/o Joginder Singh R/o Village Bodupur distt. Fatehgarh Sahib in year 2004 and out of that wedlock I have two daughters elder one is years and younger one is xxxxxx year 2014, I got divorce from Jarnail Singh and after that in the same year I got married to Gurjeet Singh S/o Jaswinder Singh R/o ward No.6 Kurali distt. SAS Nagar and out of this one son named Jaspreet Singh aged around 10 years. My daughter xxxxxx used to work at Clothes showroom brand Madamme Amayra City centre, Khanpur, Kharar as per her daily routine left the house at around 9:00 am in the morning and she used to return back by 8:30/8:45 day she did not return and her phone was also after that we went to Madamme showroom Khanpur, Kharar at around 9:30 p daughter had left the showroom at around 8:00 p know anything about her. That after that on 10.02.2025 we gave an application to Police station City kharar and that was marked to SI Balwinder Singh and till today we know nothing about our daughter. That today we came to know at our own that daughter has been kept by one Shubham who used to work at Skechers showroom at Amayra city centre, Khanpur, Kharar. So, my daughter should be searc should be taken against Shubham. I have given my statement in presence of my daughter xxxxx to be correct. Sd/- xxxxxxx attested by sd/ verified by sd/ ASI Daljit Singh P.S. City Kharar dated 17.06.2025..” Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner, who is 25 years old, was well acquainted well over 17 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence implicated in this case. It is being of BNS, 2023 registered at Police The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- Copy of Statement, xxxxxx Wife of Gurjeet Singh S/o Jaswinder Singh R/o Ward No.6 Kurali near Petrol Pump, Police Station City Kurali district SAS Nagar aged around 35 years stated that she is residence of abovementioned housewife. I xxxxx wife of Gurjeet Singh s/ Jaswinder Singh r/o Ward No.6 Kurali, Distt. SAS Nagar and I was earlier married Jarnail Singh S/o Joginder Singh R/o Village tehgarh Sahib in year 2004 and out of that wedlock I have two daughters elder one is xxxxx aged around 20 xxxxxx who is aged around 17 years. In year 2014, I got divorce from Jarnail Singh and after that in the year I got married to Gurjeet Singh S/o Jaswinder Singh R/o ward No.6 Kurali distt. SAS Nagar and out of this wedlock I have one son named Jaspreet Singh aged around 10 years. My daughter used to work at Clothes showroom brand Madamme Khanpur, Kharar and on dated 09.02.2025 she er her daily routine left the house at around 9:00 am in the morning and she used to return back by 8:30/8:45 p.m., but on that and her phone was also not available and Madamme showroom at Amayra city centre ur, Kharar at around 9:30 p.m. but they stated that your daughter had left the showroom at around 8:00 p.m. and we don't know anything about her. That after that on 10.02.2025 we gave an application to Police station City kharar and that was marked to SI nder Singh and till today we know nothing about our daughter. That today we came to know at our own that o daughter has been kept by one Shubham who used to work at Skechers showroom at Amayra city centre, Khanpur, Kharar. So, my daughter should be searched and appropriate legal action should be taken against Shubham. I have given my statement in x and heard it understood it, found it attested by sd/- xxxxx 76966 xxxxx verified by sd/ ASI Daljit Singh P.S. City Kharar dated Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the well acquainted with the prosecutrix, who at the time of the alleged occurrence, h being stated that the victim in her registered at Police Wife of Gurjeet Singh S/o Jaswinder Singh R/o Ward No.6 Kurali near Petrol Pump, Police Station City Kurali district SAS Nagar aged around 35 years abovementioned Gurjeet Singh s/o Jaswinder Singh r/o Ward No.6 Kurali, Distt. SAS Nagar and I was earlier married Jarnail Singh S/o Joginder Singh R/o Village tehgarh Sahib in year 2004 and out of that aged around 20 who is aged around 17 years. In year 2014, I got divorce from Jarnail Singh and after that in the year I got married to Gurjeet Singh S/o Jaswinder Singh R/o wedlock I have one son named Jaspreet Singh aged around 10 years. My daughter used to work at Clothes showroom brand Madamme at she er her daily routine left the house at around 9:00 am in the , but on that vailable and Amayra city centre but they stated that your and we don't know anything about her. That after that on 10.02.2025 we gave an application to Police station City kharar and that was marked to SI nder Singh and till today we know nothing about our our daughter has been kept by one Shubham who used to work at Skechers showroom at Amayra city centre, Khanpur, Kharar. So, appropriate legal action should be taken against Shubham. I have given my statement in tood it, found it xxxxx verified by sd/ ASI Daljit Singh P.S. City Kharar dated submits that the who has that the victim in her SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53347-2025 statement under Section has not supported before the learned Trial Court. record the copie 7 and P-8 respectively. actual custody of registered against him. 4. Per contra, submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. petitioner was actively involv custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of days. The learned State counse submits that in the present case, charges were framed on total 17 prosecution witnesses, in view of the serious allegations against concession of regular bail. 5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2012) 1 SCC 40 "21. earliest the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative 2025 (O&M) -3- statement under Section 183 of BNSS and in her has not supported the prosecution case. Even the complainant before the learned Trial Court. In support of his contentions, h record the copies of the statements of complainant and the victim 8 respectively. He further submits that the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 08 months & 18 days and there is no other criminal case registered against him. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from submits that in the present case, charges were framed on prosecution witnesses, 02 have been examined till date. in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus: "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative her testimony before the Trial Court, en the complainant has turned hostile In support of his contentions, he has placed nts of complainant and the victim as Annexures P He further submits that the petitioner has undergone an days and there is no other criminal case learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She states that the ed in the commission of the offence. She has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 08 months and l, on instructions from HC Lakhwinderpal Singh submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 17.11.2025 and out of have been examined till date. She submits that the petitioner, he is not entitled to the Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reads thus: In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of before the Trial Court, turned hostile on as Annexures P- He further submits that the petitioner has undergone an days and there is no other criminal case learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the She states that the She has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody months and 18 HC Lakhwinderpal Singh, and out of She submits that the petitioner, he is not entitled to the Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The . Deprivation of SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53347-2025 liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is requir ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty 22. custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure the operative test. concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, up has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances 7. Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into t into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and facie, the involvement of the accused and the material on record. 8. In cases similar to the present one, factors which warrant consideration of the Court also include, but are not limited to the age of the prosecutrix and its difference from the age of the petitioner, so as to also determine the ele respect to the contents of the statements made by the prosecutrix. 9. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record that charges came to be framed on 2025 (O&M) -4- liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is requir ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, up has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances." Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into t into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and , the involvement of the accused and the material on record. In cases similar to the present one, factors which warrant consideration of the Court also include, but are not limited to the age of the prosecutrix and its difference from the age of the petitioner, so as to also determine the element of perversion; and the arguments raised, particularly with respect to the contents of the statements made by the prosecutrix. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record that charges came to be framed on 17.11.2025. liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and prima , the involvement of the accused and the material on record. In cases similar to the present one, factors which warrant consideration of the Court also include, but are not limited to the age of the prosecutrix and its difference from the age of the petitioner, so as to also ment of perversion; and the arguments raised, particularly with respect to the contents of the statements made by the prosecutrix. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record that 17.11.2025. Yet, only 02 out of 17 cited ed to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any on which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking bail, the he evidence, must take prima In cases similar to the present one, factors which warrant consideration of the Court also include, but are not limited to the age of the prosecutrix and its difference from the age of the petitioner, so as to also ment of perversion; and the arguments raised, particularly with Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record that cited SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53347-2025 prosecution witnesses have been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion o remained in actual custody for a period of disputed that he has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other 10. While the the petitioner, and the touchstone of evidence grant of bail necessitate a stage of the trial, the absconding or influencing the 11. Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair the trial. Moreover, it is noted that the material witnesses during their examination before the trial Court, did not support the and have been declared hostile. While it is settled that testimony is a matter for appreciation at the yet, even while refraining from this factum cannot be all the considerations stated hereinbefore, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes 2025 (O&M) -5- prosecution witnesses have been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of 08 months and disputed that he has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the necessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of justice. Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair the trial. Moreover, it is noted that the material witnesses during their examination before the trial Court, did not support the and have been declared hostile. While it is settled that testimony is a matter for appreciation at the stage of final adjudication of the case, yet, even while refraining from entering into any conclusive evaluation thereof, his factum cannot be completely overlooked. Therefore, upon taking into account considerations stated hereinbefore, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of of the Constitution of India, which includes prosecution witnesses have been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, f trial is not imminent. The petitioner has already months and 18 days. It is also not disputed that he has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other case. truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the during the course of trial, the parameters governing the balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial. Moreover, it is noted that the material witnesses during the course of their examination before the trial Court, did not support the prosecution versio and have been declared hostile. While it is settled that the probative value of such stage of final adjudication of the case, entering into any conclusive evaluation thereof, completely overlooked. Therefore, upon taking into account considerations stated hereinbefore, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, obliges prosecution witnesses have been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, f trial is not imminent. The petitioner has already 8 days. It is also not case. truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the during the course of trial, the parameters governing the balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his the conduct of the course of prosecution version the probative value of such stage of final adjudication of the case, entering into any conclusive evaluation thereof, completely overlooked. Therefore, upon taking into account considerations stated hereinbefore, and without expressing an opinion on opinion pace of the undergone, would personal liberty under Article the right to a speedy trial, obliges SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53347-2025 the Court to ensure that pre character. The prolonged concluded in the that ‘bail is the Supreme Court in 3 SCC 22. 12. Without commenting any prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial C shall also abide by the following conditions: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an ap 2025 (O&M) -6- the Court to ensure that pre-trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’, as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. shall also abide by the following conditions:- The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused which he is suspected. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuad disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. incarceration does not assume a punitive incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle rule and jail is the exception’, as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) thing on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the ourt/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution plication for cancellation of bail before this Court. incarceration does not assume a punitive incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle rule and jail is the exception’, as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) thing on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the The petitioner The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the of, or for commission of The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted e him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution plication for cancellation of bail before this Court. SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53347-2025 14. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present c purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 10.03.2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) -7- However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present c purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed ase which are only for the Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document