CRM-M-19453-2026 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 CRM-M-19453-2026 Decided on : 16.07.2026 Ramesh Kumar . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab assisted by ASI Sukhwinder Singh. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. 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 here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Ramesh Kumar 0002 24.01.2026 S. 7, 7-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended vide Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018) and S. 61(2) of BNSS, 2023 (S. 120-B of IPC) Vigilanc e Bureau Ludhiana 2. As per the allegations in the FIR, registered at the instance of complainant – Gurmeet Singh @ Kaka, on 08.12.2025, HC Ramesh Kumar (petitioner herein), who was already known to the complainant, met him in Khanna Market and informed him that SI Narpinderpal Singh, Incharge, CIA Khanna, wanted to meet him. When complainant expressed his unwillingness, petitioner allegedly told him that otherwise he might be falsely implicated and, therefore, he should meet the said officer. It is further the case of the prosecution that, thereafter, complainant contacted SI Narpinderpal Singh through WhatsApp and was JAWALA RAM 2026.07.17 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-19453-2026 - 2 - called to the CIA Staff office, where he was allegedly asked to pay 5.00 ₹ lakhs per month for allowing him to continue his alleged betting/gambling activities. It was further conveyed that HC Ramesh Kumar (petitioner herein) would collect the amount on behalf of SI Narpinderpal Singh. According to the prosecution, on 24.01.2026, acting on the instructions of SI Narpinderpal Singh, petitioner reached the complainant, where a trap had already been laid, and while allegedly receiving 5.20 ₹ lakhs on behalf of SI Narpinderpal Singh, he was apprehended red-handed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken at their face value, it is highly doubtful that petitioner was a party to any conspiracy for demanding or accepting illegal gratification. At the highest, it is alleged that he acted as a middleman and, on the asking of his superior officer, went to collect the amount. He further argues that, as per FIR itself, there is no allegation that petitioner ever raised any demand of illegal gratification from the complainant. Thus, according to learned counsel, alleged recovery from the petitioner, if any, by itself would not establish that he was the ultimate beneficiary of the alleged bribe amount or that he was to retain the same. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner, who is inside jail for about 05 months and 20 days, does not deserve to be kept behind bars for any longer period and is entitled to the concession of regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 15.07.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at the appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned State counsel, while vehemently opposing the prayer for bail, submits that petitioner was apprehended red-handed while allegedly receiving the bribe amount on behalf of his superior officer. However, he is unable to point out any material to show that the petitioner himself had ever directly demanded any amount from the complainant for not interfering with his alleged betting/gambling business. JAWALA RAM 2026.07.17 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-19453-2026 - 3 - It is further submitted that the audio recordings of the calls made or received by the petitioner have been verified pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide orders dated 17.04.2026 and 18.05.2026, and that the questioned voice sample of the petitioner has already been obtained. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court notices that, as per the prosecution case itself, there is no allegation that petitioner had independently raised any demand of illegal gratification from the complainant. Whether petitioner was merely acting on the instructions of his superior officer or was an active participant in the alleged conspiracy, and the extent of his criminal culpability, are matters to be established during the course of trial. Besides, it is also noticeable that petitioner is inside jail for about 05 months and 20 days and trial has not yet commenced, though total of 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. Therefore, this Court does not find any substantial reason to continue the petitioner inside jail for an indefinite period during the pendency of the trial. 8. Accordingly, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances noticed here-above, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing 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. 9. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 10. 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, JAWALA RAM 2026.07.17 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-19453-2026 - 4 - 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. 11. Petition stands disposed of. Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 16, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.07.17 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document