CRM-M-25048-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25048-2026 Sandeep @ Bouncer ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 21.07.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 22.07.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 22.07.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. V.S. Mahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J :- 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. 83 dated 26.06.2025 registered under Sections 308(2), 319(2) and 351(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Division No.4, Patiala, District Patiala. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.22 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25048-2026 -2- 2. As per the allegations, a complaint was submitted by the complainant-Ravi Kant to SSP, Patiala, alleging therein that on 23.05.2024, the present petitioner accompanied by Constable Kulwant Singh and some other persons had stopped his car for checking purposes and by extending threats to entangle him in a drugs case, had illegally taken a sum of ₹5,000 from him. On receipt of the complaint, the present FIR was registered and investigation proceedings were initiated. The statement of the complainant was recorded. It was revealed that one Laddi had prepared a video of the entire incident on his mobile phone when money was demanded from the complainant. The said video was shown to the investigating agency. The petitioner, who was already arrested in another case bearing FIR No. 68 dated 26.05.2025, registered at Police Station Lahori Gate, District Patiala, was joined in the investigation of this case on 02.01.2026 and was formally arrested. Investigation now stands complete. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as even the charges are yet to be framed and no prosecution witness has been examined. There is considerable delay in reporting the matter to the police, which has not been explained. He is on bail in another case registered against him. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.22 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25048-2026 -3- 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report, has vehemently argued that the petitioner by falsely impersonating himself as a police official posted at Police Station Division No. 4, Patiala, unlawfully intercepted the complainant on the fateful day and, by extending threats to falsely implicate him in a case under the provisions of the NDPS Act, seized his vehicle and demanded illegal gratification, thereby extorting a sum of ₹5,000 from him. It is further argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner is in custody since 02.01.2026. The subject offences are triable by a Magistrate. The trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future and is likely to take considerable time to conclude. No fruitful purpose would be served by the continued detention of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to suggest that he may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses, if extended the benefit of bail. 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. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and it can neither be punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. In view of the discussion made above, this Court PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.22 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25048-2026 -4- 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. 7. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 22nd July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.22 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document