CRM-M-27973-2025 -1- 231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27973-2025 Date of Decision:21.08.2025 Rashpal Singh @ Rachhpal Singh …Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate Mr. Armaan Singh, Advocate and Mr. Akhil Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.18 dated 16.04.2025 registered under Section 7 of Prevention against Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Range Amritsar, District Amritsar. 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner never demanded bribe from the complainant. In fact, the petitioner was working as a Mandi Supervisor and did not have the authority to renew the license and waive off the penalty, as per rule 24 of the Punjab Market Committees Bye-laws. He further contends that the notices in dispute are issued by the Secretary Market Committee, Kanhuwan and the HEMLATA 2025.08.21 23:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27973-2025 -2- petitioner had no concern with the issuance of the notices. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 16.04.2025 and is in custody for the last more than 4 months. Even the investigation has already been completed and the challan has been presented against him. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the prosecution has relied upon 13 witnesses, but no witness has been examined, so far. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In the present case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last more than 04 months and the prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness so far. Thus, the conclusion of the trial may take quite a long time. Further, the prosecution has failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the petitioner may tamper with the prosecution evidence or may flee from the process of justice. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 21.08.2025 JUDGE hemlata Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HEMLATA 2025.08.21 23:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document