CRM-M No.34919 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 275 CRM-M No.34919 of 2026 Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Sahil Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, 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 58 10.04.2026 Bareta, District Mansa 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) (238 of BNS added later on) 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition MANJU 2026.07.08 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.34919 of 2026 -2- are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Balwinder Singh alleging therein that in the morning of 10.04.2026, he along with his partner Jagdev Singh had come to his pesticide shop and found the locks of the shop to be broken. Its shutter was partially opened and the glass cabin was found to be broken. An amount of Rs.24,000/- and a silver coin kept in the drawer were found to be missing. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was nominated as an accused during the course of investigation and was arrested on 18.04.2026. 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. No test identification parade of the petitioner had been conducted. He has clean antecedents. No recovery is to be effected from him. He is not required for further investigation. His further incarceration would not serve any purpose. It is, thus, argued that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab has advance notice of the petition and while placing on record the custody certificate of the petitioner, it is submitted by him that taking into consideration the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to MANJU 2026.07.08 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.34919 of 2026 -3- be extended benefit of bail. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have committed offence of theft in the shop of the complainant. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offence against him. However, he has been in custody since 18.04.2026. The investigation has been concluded, challan has been filed and, therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner is not required. His antecedents are clean. The well settled proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre trial incarceration of an accused should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, 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. 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) 07.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.08 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh