CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43392 43392 43392 43392---- 113+225 (1 113+225 (1 113+225 (1 113+225 (1stststst case) case) case) case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Amit Kumar State of Punjab CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present Present Present Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to the petitioner in case bearing offences punishable under Sections 55 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (Section 25 of the A Punjab. 2. complainant, namely, ----2025 2025 2025 2025 case) case) case) case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Amit Kumar versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Advocate, Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Mr. Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate and Ms. Bhavi Kapur, Advocate for Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate and Mr. Rehan Gupta, Advocate for ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.149 dated 16.07.2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 55 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (Section 25 of the Arms Act added later on), at Police Station Sadar The gravamen of the allegations against the , namely, Prem Singh, stated that 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43392 43392 43392 43392----2025 2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: September 16 September 16 September 16 September 16, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Advocate, Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate, Mr. Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate and for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate and Mr. Rehan Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya BNSS’) for grant of regular bail FIR No.149 dated 16.07.2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 55 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (Section rms Act added later on), at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, the allegations against the petitioner is that Prem Singh, stated that on 16.07.2025, while he was 1111 2025 2025 2025 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 483 of Bharatiya for grant of regular bail FIR No.149 dated 16.07.2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 55 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (Section , petitioner is that 16.07.2025, while he was MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.17 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43392 43392 43392 43392----2025 2025 2025 2025 present in his office, a reliable acquaintance informed him that Simranjit Singh Bagga and Tajinder Singh Pala—both known for drug trafficking and facing several criminal cases—had been released from jail. The acquaintance further disclosed that on the night of 15.07.2025, he was sitting with Simranjit Singh Bagga and Tajinder Singh Pala at a flat in CRPF Colony, with whom he shared old ties of friendship. At that time, Bagga and Pala were consuming drugs and partying. During their conversation, they revealed that a deal had been struck with Amit Kumar Garg (petitioner herein/ owner of Basant Avenue, Ludhiana) for eliminating Prem Singh Babbar (complainant). It was further stated that Amit Kumar Garg had paid them an advance of ₹3 lakh and also provided photographs of the complainant and his vehicles, which were saved in his mobile phone. Simranjit Singh Bagga subsequently called his associates Lakha and Kishan, who also arrived at the flat. In their presence, Bagga informed Lakha that they had conducted surveillance of the complainant, collected details about him, and shown the same to the petitioner. Upon being satisfied, Garg paid them ₹3 lakh as advance for killing the complainant and promised further rewards upon execution of the plan. Thus, all four—Bagga, Pala, Lakha, and Kishan—had been allegedly engaged by the petitioner to eliminate the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2025. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was earlier engaged in business in partnership with the FIR – complainant and it is on this account that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as there was some business dispute MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.17 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43392 43392 43392 43392----2025 2025 2025 2025 between them. Learned counsel has further argued that the complainant, in connivance with the police, forcibly abducted the petitioner from his office and had tried to coerce a settlement between the petitioner and the complainant, which could not be materialized, and, thereafter, the petitioner has been falsely implicated and arrested in relation to the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that the challan (charge-sheet) in the FIR in question qua the petitioner already stands presented on 13.09.2025 and there is no material placed therein to show as to who had overheard the co- accused conspiring and veracity of the pen drive stated to have been provided along with the challan is doubtful in the absence of certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 63 of the BNS) as also the source of the said pen drive not coming forth. Learned counsel has also iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of about 02 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, hence, he ought not to be extended concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 15.09.2025, which is taken on record. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner by arguing that there are serious and direct allegations against the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel further argued that, in case, the petitioner is extended the concession of regular bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from process of justice and also intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Learned Senior counsel has further MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.17 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43392 43392 43392 43392----2025 2025 2025 2025 argued that the petitioner is involved in multiple other FIR(s) which proves his criminal antecedents. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for. 6. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 7. The petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2025 and is in continuous custody since then. Upon culmination of the investigation, the challan has been presented on 17.09.2025. Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date. It is thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 7.1. As per custody certificate dated 15.09.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 month and 29 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.17 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5555 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43392 43392 43392 43392----2025 2025 2025 2025 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Haryana Haryana Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. Balraj v. Balraj v. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) State of Haryana, 1998 (3) State of Haryana, 1998 (3) State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. Concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the CJM/ Duty Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 9. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/ Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.17 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6666 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----43392 43392 43392 43392----2025 2025 2025 2025 State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 10. Ordered accordingly. 11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 12. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 16 September 16 September 16 September 16, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.17 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment