CNR No:PHHC010376472026 CRM-M-12473-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 224 CRM-M-12473-2026 Decided on :20.07.2026 Kamal Kumar @ Billa . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. A.S. Khinda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravneet Singh Lekhi, AAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No. 63 dated 22.03.2025, registered under Sections 229, 236, 237, 336(2), 337, 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 193, 199, 200, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code), at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, District Kapurthala. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that one Sonu @ Sonu Nahar was an accused in FIR No. 6 of 2021, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Talwandi Chaudhrian, District Kapurthala. After the said accused was granted bail subject to furnishing adequate surety, one Mandeep Singh son of Ram Kishan appeared before RASHMI 2026.07.21 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CNR No:PHHC010376472026 CRM-M-12473-2026 2 the competent Court to stand as surety. It is alleged that the present petitioner identified the said person before the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the person who appeared as surety was, in fact, not Mandeep Singh son of Ram Kishan and that the petitioner falsely identified another person as the surety, thereby facilitating the release of the accused on bail. It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no substantive evidence to establish his involvement. It is further submitted that the charges are yet to be proved during the course of trial. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is neither the ultimate beneficiary of the alleged act nor is he related to the principal accused, Sonu @ Sonu Nahar, or to the person who allegedly impersonated the surety. According to the petitioner, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, identification was made under a bona fide belief, as the petitioner had identified the surety at the request of a person known to him, without any knowledge of the alleged impersonation. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be extended the concession of regular bail 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that substantial evidence is already available against the petitioner. Thus, prays for dismissal of present petitioner. However, on being specifically asked by this Court, learned State counsel has informed that the petitioner is in custody for a period of RASHMI 2026.07.21 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CNR No:PHHC010376472026 CRM-M-12473-2026 3 last seven months and fourteen days. It is further informed that out of a total of seven prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book. 6. Considering the fact that petitioner is in custody for a period of last seven months and fourteen days, and trial is not likely to conclude in the near future as none of the seven prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. Allegations against the petitioner are required to be tested during the course of trial, and at this stage, no detailed discussion on the merits of the case is warranted. Petitioner is not alleged to be the ultimate beneficiary of the alleged act, and the role attributed to him is limited to the alleged identification of the person standing as surety. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and 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. 7. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the case independently, on the basis of evidence RASHMI 2026.07.21 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CNR No:PHHC010376472026 CRM-M-12473-2026 4 available on record, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. 8. Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 20.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.07.21 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document