CRM-M-33223-2025 -1- 234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33223-2025 Date of Decision:21.08.2025 Jagat Ram …Petitioner vs. State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh, 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.07 dated 20.02.2025 registered under Section 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended vide the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Sections 318, 319 of BNS, 2023, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Range Ludhiana. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not a public servant nor he had projected himself as a public servant at any point of time. Even, there was no question of receiving of any undue advantage or bribe from the complainant by him. Even during the course of investigation, the police could not collect any evidene to show that he had any connection with a public servant and was wrongly arrested by the police on 20.02.2025, without any incriminating evidence against him. He further contends that the HEMLATA 2025.08.22 03:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33223-2025 -2- complainant had approached the petitioner for selling his property and a dispute arose between both the parties and now the civil dispute has been converted into a criminal offence illegally. He further contends that now, only charge has been framed against the petitioner and no prosecution 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 about 06 months and no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Thus, the conclusion of the trial may take quite a long time and further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. 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 2025.08.22 03:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document