[231] Sohan Singh State of Punjab Coram : Present: SANJAY VASHISTH 1. 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder: Name of Petitioner(s) Sohan Singh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-47386 Date of Decision : 02.09.2025 Sohan Singh versus State of Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Tushaar Madaan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder: Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Sohan Singh 0235 16.07.2024 143, 144, 145, 316, 318, 308, 127(3), 127(6), 127(7), 351(3), 61 of BNS, 2023 (charges sep rately framed under Sections 61(2), 318, 316 r/w Section 61 of BNS, 2023, 351(3) and 111(3) of BNS, 2023. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 47386-2025 Date of Decision : 02.09.2025 …Petitioner ….Respondent SANJAY VASHISTH Madaan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Section(s) Police Station District 144, 145, 316, 318, 308, 127(3), 127(6), 127(7), 351(3), 61 of BNS, 2023 (charges sepa- rately framed under Sections 61(2), 318, 316 r/w Section 61 of BNS, 2023, 351(3) and 111(3) of BNS, City Hoshiarpur Hoshiarpur The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising Hoshiarpur RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.09.04 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47386-2025 -2- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the first regular bail petition was withdrawn on 14.01.2025, in view of the grant of bail to the main accused, namely Sukhvir Singh @ Kala, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.06.2025 passed in CRM-M-31479- 2025, fresh grounds have arisen in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the second bail petition (CRM-M-14277-2025) was also withdrawn on 21.08.2025 with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars. Hence, the instant regular bail petition. The allegations in the FIR reveal that the main grievance raised by the complainant, Ms. NiharikaWalia (aged 26 years), is against co- accused Sukhvir Sahota (mentioned in the FIR as Sukhvir Singh @ Kala). Primarily, the allegations are directed against the said accused, whereas the only role attributed to the petitioner is that he facilitated issuance of a VISA for the victim and co-accused Sukhvir Singh @ Kala from Hariana, pursuant to which the complainant was sent alone to Dubai. No other overt act has been alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced a copy of the order dated 17.06.2025 passed in CRM-M- 31479-2025, whereby co-accused Sukhvir Singh @ Kala has been granted bail, which is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is inside jail for the last about 01 year, 01 month and 10 days and except of his involvement in the present case, his antecedents are clean. 4. On advance notice and in response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 01.09.2025 in Court today, which is taken on RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.09.04 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47386-2025 -3- record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner has already undergone 01 year 01 month and 10 days period inside jail and there is no other case registered against him. 5. Learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that significant number of witnesses are yet to be examined as out of 18 prosecution witnesses only 01 has been examined so far. Granting the concession of bail to the petitioner at this stage, may result in influencing the witnesses by him absconding, and causing obstruction to the administration of justice. In view of these considerations, learned State Counsel prays for dismissal of the present petition. 6. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and has carefully perused the record placed before it. Taking into consideration the total period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the fact that the main co-accused, namely Sukhvir Singh @ Kala, has already been granted bail, and the submission of learned State Counsel, Punjab, that out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only one, i.e. the complainant (material witness), has been examined so far. 7. In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.09.04 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47386-2025 -4- bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 8. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 9. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 10. Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 02.09.2025 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.09.04 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document