IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 246 CRM-M No.33844 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.08.2025 Amritpal Singh @ Peter ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. *** MANISHA BATRA , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 119 04.09.2024 Chattiwind, District Amritsar Rural 310(2), 191(3), 190, 111, 303(2), 238 and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) and 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Sukhdev Singh alleging that on the intervening night of 03/04.09.2024, 20-25 unknown persons armed MANJU 2025.08.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.33844 of 2025 -2- with weapons entered inside the cold storage of the complainant and after breaking open the locks of the same had committed theft of articles kept in the cold store after extending threats to the employees of the complainant who stayed there to take care of the cold storage. The details of the stolen articles were given in the complaint itself and it was submitted that those articles belonged to different companies and firms. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant. He was arrested on 07.03.2025. The co-accused were also arrested. Investigation now stands concluded. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR and has been nominated in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant recorded six months after commission of the offence of theft. The accused Ravinder Kumar did not disclose about his involvement in the commission of offence of dacoity. No recovery has been effected from him. The co-accused Ravinder Kumar, Parveen Singh @ Nikka and Thana Singh have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be released on bail. 4. Per contra, it is argued by learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab that the allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature. He has criminal antecedents as he is involved in several other cases. It is, therefore, MANJU 2025.08.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.33844 of 2025 -3- urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have committed theft of articles kept in the cold storage of the complainant. He is in custody since 07.03.2025. The investigation stands completed. Trial will take time to conclude since no prosecution witness out of 28 witnesses has been examined so far. In the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 7. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court’s official webpage. (MANISHA BATRA) 28.08.2025 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2025.08.30 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh