CRM-M-35602-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 274 CRM-M-35602-2026 Date of decision: 9th July, 2026 Jagtar Singh @ Jagga ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Anu Kumar Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- 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. 01 dated 08.01.2025 registered under Sections 303(2), 341(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act (Sections 317(2) and 61(2) of BNS added later on ) at Police Station SSOC, Fazilka, Punjab. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that a secret information was received by the Inspector Baldev Singh to the effect that the present petitioner and co-accused Jashanpreet Singh @ Jashan had relations with Anti-National Elements and were indulged in illegal and PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.10 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35602-2026 -2- terrorist activities. It was also informed to him that they were planning to cause explosion using RDX on some police station or upon police officials/officers. The complainant also received information that the petitioner was carrying illegal arms/ammunition in a stolen motorcycle and was going towards Ferozepur from the Mallanwala area. Believing the secret information to be true, a ruqa was sent for registration of FIR. A barricade was laid at Ferozepur-Mallanwala link road. The petitioner was apprehended with a stolen motorcycle. One .32 bore country made pistol, four live cartridges and one Oppo phone were recovered from him. He was interrogated and suffered a disclosure statement that he had links with the co-accused Jashanpreet Singh and stolen motorcycle was arranged by him as they had hatched a plan to attack some police official or to blast a police station. He also disclosed that the petitioner had introduced him with some person who was to bring explosives. He was nominated as such an accused. He was apprehended and by way of transit remand was brought within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station. He was formally arrested and suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. He got recovered a hand grenade in pursuance thereof. Some other co-accused were also nominated and were arrested. He was released on default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS on account of inability of the police to present challan within the stipulated time and was released on 15.04.2025. Subsequently, offences under Sections 317(2) and 61(2) of BNS were added. Investigation now stands concluded. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.10 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35602-2026 -3- 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of secret information. A false recovery has been planted upon him. There is no material on record to show that he has been involved in any anti-national or terrorist activity. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. He is in custody since 08.01.2025. The co-accused Jashanpreet Singh @ Jashan, has been extended the benefit of bail. His case is at a better footing. Accused Mandeep Singh has also been extended the benefit of bail. The principle of parity weighs in his favour. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by retaining him in custody any further. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel has accepted advance notice of the petition and, while placing on record the custody certificate, has vehemently argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioner is in custody for a period of over one year and five months. The trial has commenced but will take considerable time to conclude, as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. It is a debatable question as to whether the ingredients for commission of offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS and under the provisions of the Explosive Substances PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.10 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35602-2026 -4- Act are made out against the petitioner or not. It is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing and that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore and he has made out a case for his release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 9th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.10 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document