-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22037-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 21st July, 2026 Rajbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. S. L. Chander Shekhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- Prayer in the present petition has been made under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.35 dated 13.03.2026, registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran. 2. As per the allegations in the FIR, on 13.03.2026, a police party was present in the area in connection with patrolling and checking of suspicious persons, when a secret informer informed the Investigating Officer that the petitioner Rajbir Singh was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling illicit country-made liquor from his house. It was further informed PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.22 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- that if an immediate raid was conducted at his house and the tubewell (Bambi) situated nearby, a huge quantity of illicitly distilled liquor along with a working still (Bhatti) could be recovered. Believing the information to be reliable, the police party reached at the informed place, where the petitioner was found present near plastic drums. Upon checking, the police recovered about 200 kilograms of lahan, which was being used for preparation of illicit liquor. The petitioner was formally arrested. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offence. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He has clean antecedents. He has been in custody since 13.03.2026. The investigation stands completed and challan has already been presented before the Court. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. His further custodial interrogation is not required. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that there are serious and specific allegations against him. He was involved in manufacturing of illicit liquor. A substantial quantity of 200 kilograms of lahan was recovered from him. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.22 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. The petitioner has remained in custody since 13.03.2026. The investigation in the present case is complete and the challan has already been presented before the trial Court. Thus, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer required. He is not shown to be involved in any other case and has clean antecedents. The trial is not likely to conclude in the near future and continued incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case. 7. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 21st July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.22 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document