CRM-M-28524-2026 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 210 CRM-M-28524-2026 Decided on : 17.07.2026 Balkar Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. **** 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 Balkar Singh 0004 31.01.2026 S. 7-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended upto date, 2018) Vigilance Bureau Range Ferozepur Ferozepur 2. As per allegations, FIR in question came to be registered on the basis of an online complaint bearing No.153307, dated 26.12.2025, lodged with the Anti-Corruption Police Action Line by Gurmesh Singh. It is alleged that, for extending favour to accused Gurmesh Singh in case FIR No.195 dated 04.12.2025, involving recovery of 1.00 kg of heroin (commercial quantity), petitioner demanded illegal gratification of 2,50,000/-. On the ₹ JAWALA RAM 2026.07.20 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-28524-2026 - 2 - basis of the voice recording supplied by the complainant, the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner through the online complaint. 3. Learned Senior counsel submits that the allegations are wholly unsubstantiated and that, as on date, there is no confirmation that the voice, on the basis of which the present FIR has been registered, belongs to the petitioner. He further submits that neither any bribe amount was ever received by the petitioner nor has any recovery been effected from him. According to learned Senior counsel, had there been any substance in the allegations, complainant could have informed the investigating agency in advance, enabling it to lay a trap and effect recovery of the alleged bribe amount of 2,50,000/- from the petitioner. ₹ Accordingly, it is contended that, in the absence of any such material and considering that the petitioner has remained inside jail for about 03 months and 10 days, he 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, while vehemently opposing the prayer for bail, submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been directed to furnish his voice sample on 30.09.2026, thereafter, same shall be sent to the FSL for comparison with the questioned voice recording produced by the complainant. However, other factual assertions noticed here-above have not been disputed by the learned State counsel. JAWALA RAM 2026.07.20 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-28524-2026 - 3 - 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. 6. A perusal of the record shows that, as on date, prosecution case primarily rests upon the online complaint and the voice recording supplied by the complainant. Admittedly, the voice sample of the petitioner is yet to be compared by the FSL with the questioned voice recording. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a petition seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.04.2026 (P-6), thereafter, he surrendered before the Court on 08.04.2026. 7. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the material presently available on record, this Court is of the prima facie view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the petitioner inside jail during the pendency of the trial. Prosecution itself states that the question whether the voice contained in the recording belongs to the petitioner is yet to be scientifically verified by the FSL after obtaining his specimen voice sample. Besides, it is also noticeable that petitioner is inside jail for about 03 months and 10 days and trial has not yet commenced. 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, without commenting upon the merits of the case and keeping in view the totality of the 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. JAWALA RAM 2026.07.20 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-28524-2026 - 4 - 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, 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 17, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.07.20 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document