IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.28364 of 2026 Banwari Lal ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 22.05.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 25.05.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 25.05.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ashish Pundir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. *** MANISHA BATRA , J. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 17 dated MANJU 2026.05.25 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.28364 of 2026 -2- 11.02.2024 registered under Sections 386, 307, 506 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 25(6) and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. 2. The aforementioned FIR was initially registered against unknown persons on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Harjot Singh alleging that in the morning of 11.02.2024, he was present in his shop when three youths with covered heads and faces came outside the same on a motor bike. They started firing shots with some firearms at the flax board of the shop, handed over a slip to his assistant Ravi Kumar and then while firing shots towards him with an intention to kill, they fled. The slip contained a writing “Kaushal Choudhary Group 5 Crore W.No +393533401161”. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. 3. As further alleged, the motor bike used at the time of occurrence was recovered during the course of investigation. The co-accused Davinder Pal and Rohit Kumar were arrested. It was revealed that Kaushal Choudhary and Sourav Choudhary had formed a gang for extortion of money and the members of the same used to extort money by extending threats to rich people and by overawing them and the members of their gang had fired shots outside the shop of the complainant with the same intention. The above named persons were, however, discharged. Then accused Manisha was arrested, on whose disclosure, the present petitioner was nominated as an accused and was arrested on 10.04.2024. He suffered disclosure statement to the effect that accused Ghanshyam Vishvkarma had MANJU 2026.05.25 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.28364 of 2026 -3- assured to provide some good earning job to him and had called him on 05/06.01.2024 offering him to join the gang of gangster Kaushal Choudhary/Sourav Choudhary and to fire shots at some shop in Punjab and also to demand extortion money. He disclosed that above named GhanshyammVishvkarma had offered a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to him for doing this work and on his asking, he along with the co-accused Pardeep Kumar @ Bantu, Kuldeep Singh and Gurdeep Singh had done recce of the complainant and on the fateful day, he along with the co-accused Pardeep Kumar and Kuldeep had reached outside the shop of the complainant and had indiscriminately fired shots at flex board and had given a paper slip to the assistant of the complainant. The above named Ghanshyam Vishvkarma and one Pawan Kumar were nominated as accused and were subsequently arrested. Investigation stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. His test identification parade has also not been conducted. No motive has been attributed to him. At the time of being nominated as accused in this case, he was in custody in Rupnagar Jail. The co-accused Ghanshaym Vishvkarma and Jagdeep Singh have been extended benefit of bail. He is to be treated at parity. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future as not even a single out of twenty four prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody any more. It is, therefore, argued that MANJU 2026.05.25 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.28364 of 2026 -4- he deserves to be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have joined the membership of gang of gangsters Kaushal Choudhary and Saurav Choudhary and with other members of the gang, is alleged to have indulged in extorting ransom money by extending threats to the public persons, businessman and rich people. In pursuance of conspiracy hatched with the co-accused, he is alleged to have done recce of the shop of the complainant and to have fired shots with pistol on the flex board of his shop in order to overawe of the complainant and to extort money from him. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner. However, he is in custody since 10.04.2024. No recovery has been effected from him. The continued detention of the petitioner is not going to serve any fruitful purpose since the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as not even a single prosecution witness has been examined so far. It is well settled proposition of law that pre trial incarceration of an accused should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. The detention prior to trial should not become punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as MANJU 2026.05.25 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.28364 of 2026 -5- surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) 25.05.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.05.25 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh