CRM-M-12131-2026 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 CRM-M-12131-2026 Decided on : 06.07.2026 Dashrath Singh @ Dashrath Singh Tanwar . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. The instant second 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 here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Dashrath Singh @ Dashrath Singh Tanwar 121 04.04.2025 S. 140(3), 111(2)(B) of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile S. 365 of IPC) City Barnala Barnala 2. Complainant – Veena Devi, got registered FIR in question, which reads as under:- “ Statement of Veena Devi wife of Dharvinder Kumar, resident of Malda Hindriya, District Sheikhpura (Bihar), presently residing in Jhuggis near Anaj Mandi, Barnala. Mobile No.: 72580-03732. She stated that I am a resident of the aforementioned address. I work as a domestic laborer. I have five children. My eldest son's name is Anditya Kumar, about 10 years old, then my daughter Nirjala Kumari, about 08 years old, then my son Kal Kumar, about 06 years old, then my daughter Urmila Kumari, about 04 years old, and the youngest is Rihant Kumar, about 02 years old. Today, I was doing household JAWALA RAM 2026.07.08 20:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-12131-2026 - 2 - chores inside my jhuggi. It must have been around 02:15 PM, my son Rihant Kumar was playing outside the jhuggi with other children. When I came out to give tea to my child, two young men came riding on a motorcycle. The person sitting on the back of the motorcycle, in front of my eyes, picked up my son Rihant Kumar and kidnapped him. They- fled towards Bajakhana Chowk, Barnala on their black-colored motorcycle. 1 can identify them if they appear in front of me. Upon my raising alarm, people from the neighborhood gathered. We searched for my child thoroughly but could not find any clue. Legal action may be taken against the two unknown motorcycle-borne persons who abducted my child Rihant, and my child may be traced. Today, I was going to inform the police along with my sister-in-law Chuni Kumari, when we met you at the gate of Anaj Mandi, Barnala, and I gave you my statement. This is correct as stated. Attested Signature /- Veena Devi” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that two accused, who were noticed and identified by complainant, were namely, Manav Arora and Damanpreet Singh @ Phulli. As per case of complainant herself, petitioner was not one of the kidnappers of her minor child, aged about 02 years. 4. Learned counsel further submits that after registration of FIR on 04.04.2025, child was recovered on 08.04.2025 from hospital belonging to Dr. Vikas Tiwari. However, petitioner was not present there at time of recovery of minor child. Further submits that case of prosecution is primarily based only upon disclosure statements of co-accused Damanpreet Singh @ Phulli and Aditya @ Nanni, who allegedly made extra-judicial confession on 06.04.2025, wherein involvement of present petitioner has also been shown on allegation that he was to make arrangements for further selling of minor child. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner primarily argues that except JAWALA RAM 2026.07.08 20:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-12131-2026 - 3 - disclosure statements of aforesaid co-accused, there is no other connecting or incriminating evidence collected by Investigating Officer during investigation. Said evidence, by itself, is also inadmissible in evidence as per law. Further points out that petitioner has been involved in present case only because he was known to police on account of his involvement in one case under NDPS Act, wherein he is already on bail. 6. On other hand, learned State counsel has produced custody certificate dated 05.07.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag same at appropriate place. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for petitioner. 7. Learned State counsel, while vehemently opposing prayer for grant of regular bail, submits that as per disclosure statement of co-accused Damanpreet Singh @ Phulli, petitioner himself had come forward to make necessary arrangements for further selling of child. However, it is not disputed by learned State counsel that petitioner was not the person, who initially kidnapped minor child, nor had any direct role in actual act of kidnapping committed by other two accused. Learned State counsel further submits that petitioner is inside jail for a period of about 01 year and 04 months and, out of total cited 23 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far. Besides, other factual assertions noticed hereinabove have not been controverted by him. 8. Further, in compliance of direction issued by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.04.2026, learned State counsel submits that except one case under NDPS Act, petitioner is not involved in any other JAWALA RAM 2026.07.08 20:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-12131-2026 - 4 - criminal case of any nature. Even there is no other allegation regarding kidnapping of any person for ransom or otherwise. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused relevant material available on record. 10. Actual involvement of petitioner in alleged conspiracy relating to kidnapping and further selling of minor child is yet to be established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Two star witnesses, who identified co- accused Manav Arora and Damanpreet Singh @ Phulli, have already been examined before trial Court. Admittedly, petitioner is not one of the said persons, as his name has surfaced only on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused. Besides, petitioner is inside jail for a period of about 01 year and 04 months and, out of total cited 23 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, trial is not likely to conclude in near future. Hence, personal liberty of petitioner cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period, particularly when evidence against him is yet to be tested during trial. 11. Without commenting anything on merits of case, but considering facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove, particularly nature of allegations against petitioner, manner in which his name has surfaced during investigation, period of incarceration already undergone by him, stage of trial and conclusion thereof being likely to take considerable time, this Court is of considered opinion that petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing JAWALA RAM 2026.07.08 20:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-12131-2026 - 5 - 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. 12. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 13. 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. 14. Petition stands disposed of. It is, however, made clear that, in case petitioner is found, in any manner, influencing or threatening prosecution witnesses, same shall constitute a fresh cause of action for learned trial Court to consider cancellation of bail, in accordance with law. Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 06, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.07.08 20:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document