216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RAHUL STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This is the first petition filed under Section BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in dated 09.09.2024 added later on) Commissionerate 2. Brief facts of the present case are that complainant Om Parkash Kumar stated that on 07.09.2024 at about 6:30 PM, when he reached few distance behind his factory, two persons came on Blac near him and alighted therefrom, out of them, one person was clean shaven having fair complexion and was armed with iron rod. They both were calling each other by name of Rahul (petitioner herein) and Atul. Co gave rod blow on the neck of the complainant and second person namely Rahul (petitioner herein) snatched his mobile phone Mark Oppo, Golden Colour, Model 838 from his pocket, wallet of black colour, containing notes of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This is the first petition filed under Section for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in 09.09.2024 under Sections 307, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (Section 317(2) BNS added later on) registered at Police Station Commissionerate, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1). Brief facts of the present case are that complainant Om Parkash Kumar stated that on 07.09.2024 at about 6:30 PM, when he reached few distance behind his factory, two persons came on Blac near him and alighted therefrom, out of them, one person was clean shaven having fair complexion and was armed with iron rod. They both were calling each other by name of Rahul (petitioner herein) and Atul. Co ow on the neck of the complainant and second person namely Rahul (petitioner herein) snatched his mobile phone Mark Oppo, Golden Colour, Model 838 from his pocket, wallet of black colour, containing notes of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18561-2025 Date of decision: 09.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. This is the first petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 of for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.171 307, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (Section 317(2) BNS Focal Point, District Police Brief facts of the present case are that complainant Om Parkash Kumar stated that on 07.09.2024 at about 6:30 PM, when he reached few distance behind his factory, two persons came on Black Activa and stopped near him and alighted therefrom, out of them, one person was clean shaven having fair complexion and was armed with iron rod. They both were calling each other by name of Rahul (petitioner herein) and Atul. Co-accused Atul ow on the neck of the complainant and second person namely Rahul (petitioner herein) snatched his mobile phone Mark Oppo, Golden Colour, Model 838 from his pocket, wallet of black colour, containing notes of MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-18561 Rs.5,000/-, his Adhar Card bearing No.9629381805 from left pocket of his trouser. Thereafter, both the accused gave fist blows to the complainant and threatened to kill him and fled away from the spot. Hence, the FIR ( 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, is a delay of two dent in the case set up by the prosecution. He further contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by twisting and the allegations have been manipulated to aggravate the offence, only to make it a non-bailable offence. namely, Atul Sharma has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide of 2025 titled as investigation of the case is complete and the final report has already been presented before the jurisdictional Court. Further, t prepared by the investigating officer do not bear the petitioner, as such, it has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. petitioner is behind the bars since petitioner is involved in one more case 4. Learned petitioner, which is taken on record and petitioner on the ground that record as the snatched mobile was is not entitled to any relief keeping in view the serious and specific allegations levelled against him. However, he could not controvert the fact that the accused has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. 18561-2025 2 , his Adhar Card bearing No.9629381805 from left pocket of his trouser. Thereafter, both the accused gave fist blows to the complainant and threatened to kill him and fled away from the spot. Hence, the FIR (supra) was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner, two days in registration of FIR (supra dent in the case set up by the prosecution. He further contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by twisting and the allegations have been manipulated to aggravate the offence, only to bailable offence. Furthermore, similarly situated co namely, Atul Sharma has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 in case bearing titled as ‘Atul Sharma vs. State of Punjab’ investigation of the case is complete and the final report has already been presented before the jurisdictional Court. Further, t prepared by the investigating officer do not bear the petitioner, as such, it has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. petitioner is behind the bars since 13.09.2024. volved in one more case, but he is on bail in the said case. earned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record and per contra, on the ground that the complicity of th as the snatched mobile was recovered from his possession, as such, is not entitled to any relief keeping in view the serious and specific allegations levelled against him. However, he could not controvert the fact that the accused has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. , his Adhar Card bearing No.962938180504 and other documents from left pocket of his trouser. Thereafter, both the accused gave fist blows to the complainant and threatened to kill him and fled away from the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that there supra), which creates a serious dent in the case set up by the prosecution. He further contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by twisting the facts and the allegations have been manipulated to aggravate the offence, only to Furthermore, similarly situated co-accused, namely, Atul Sharma has already been granted the concession of regular bail order dated 04.04.2025 in case bearing CRM-M No.17584 ‘Atul Sharma vs. State of Punjab’. He submits that the investigation of the case is complete and the final report has already been presented before the jurisdictional Court. Further, the recovery memos prepared by the investigating officer do not bear the signatures of the petitioner, as such, it has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The He submits that although the , but he is on bail in the said case. State counsel produces the custody certificate of the per contra, opposes the prayer of the the complicity of the petitioner is duly proved on recovered from his possession, as such, he is not entitled to any relief keeping in view the serious and specific allegations levelled against him. However, he could not controvert the fact that the co- accused has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-18561 5. A two Judge Bench Kumar Antil v. CBI’ of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bar since 13.09.2024, as per his custody certificate. report under Section 173 The culpability, if any, would be purpose shall be served by further the petitioner in further detention concluded in the near future, would be of the Constitution of India. 18561-2025 3 A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would 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 punishab 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 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 conce opposite to each other.” Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bar since , as per his custody certificate. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petiti the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender , with respect to prevailing conditions 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 offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a 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 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bar since Investigation is complete. The final Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. determined at the time of trial. No useful detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping without the prospect of the trial being violative of his rights under Article 21 MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-18561 7. In view of the above, the present petition is allo without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. 8. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Cou without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. April 09, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 18561-2025 4 In view of the above, the present petition is allo without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner-Rahul is ordered to be released on regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the is ordered to be released on regular bail during the pendency of the trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of rt on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment