CRA-D-839-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 CRA-D-839-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Gurmit Singh @ Gitti ...Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ , J.(ORAL) CRM-21820-2026 Prayer in the application is for condonation of delay of 368 days in filing the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that although Section 21(5) of the The National Investigation Act, 2008, provides that an appeal has to be preferred within a period of 90 days. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Criminal Appeal No. 2603 of 2026, decided on 18.05.2026, has directed that, pending adjudication upon the legality and validity of the said provision, an appeal seeking regular bail shall not be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. JYOTI 2026.07.23 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-839-2026 (O&M) 2 In view of the aforesaid directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi (supra), the application is allowed and the delay of 368 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Main case 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which the bail application of the appellant in case FIR No.08 dated 12.02.2025, registered under Sections 192 and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 (Sections 153 and 120-B of IPC) and Section 10 and 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 at Police Station Dharamgarh, District Sangrur, Punjab, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the case of the petitioner is at par with co-accused Jugraj Singh @ Sony, to whom the concession of regular bail has already been granted by this Court vide order 21.07.2026 passed in CRA-D-750-2026 titled as Jugraj Singh @ Sony Vs. State of Punjab. 3 Learned State counsel verifies and does not dispute the aforesaid factual position. He fairly concedes that the case of the appellant is at par with that of co-accused Jugraj Singh @ Sony, who has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. 4 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the facts as noticed above and also considering the fact that the co- accused Jugraj Singh @ Sony, has already already been granted the concession of regular bail, we deem it appropriate to allow the present appeal and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty JYOTI 2026.07.23 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-839-2026 (O&M) 3 Magistrate, concerned. 5 It is made clear that the appellant shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. 6 The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 7 All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) 22.07.2026 JUDGE jyoti3 Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No JYOTI 2026.07.23 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document