CRM-M-23155-2026 1 217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23155-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 GURPREET SINGH @ BAO ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Karanjeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (akin to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) is being filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.187 dated 23.11.2025, registered under Sections 109, 308(4), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 387, 506, 34 IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, subsequently added Sections 111, 61(2) and 48 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 120-B IPC), at Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1), during the pendency of trial. 2. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant alleging that he was residing in his agricultural fields outside the village and had installed CCTV cameras around his residence. It was alleged that on 18.11.2025, his son received a WhatsApp ₹ voice recording from an unknown number wherein a ransom demand of 1 crore was made. The said demand was not acted upon by the complainant. It was further alleged that on 20.11.2025 at about 09:45 PM, while the KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-23155-2026 2 complainant was present at his residence along with his family members, two persons arrived on a motorcycle and one of them fired three shots towards his house. The occurrence was allegedly captured in the CCTV footage installed at the residence. Thereafter, on contacting the number from which the ransom message was received, the caller allegedly disclosed himself as Kesab Batala and threatened the complainant with serious consequences in case the demand was not fulfilled.During investigation, the police allegedly linked the present case with another FIR registered at Police Station Ramdas. On the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused persons, it was alleged that a group of persons was involved in identifying financially sound individuals, collecting their details and making extortion demands by using virtual numbers in the name of gang members. It is further the case of the prosecution that the present petitioner Gurpreet Singh @ Bao, along with co-accused persons, was involved in the alleged conspiracy and used to provide information regarding potential targets and receive/handle the extortion money. The petitioner was nominated during investigation on the basis of disclosure statements of co- accused persons and was arrested on 17.12.2025. After completion of investigation, challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court and the petitioner is facing trial. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no direct, independent or legally admissible evidence connecting him with the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and there is no allegation whatsoever against him in the initial version given by the complainant. The petitioner has been nominated only during the course of KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-23155-2026 3 investigation on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused persons, which are inadmissible in evidence and cannot form the sole basis for keeping the petitioner in custody. 3.1 It is further submitted that the entire case of the prosecution against the petitioner is based upon alleged disclosure statements and a purported conspiracy theory. No recovery of any weapon, money, mobile phone, digital device or any other incriminating material has been effected from the petitioner. There is no financial trail, call detail record or digital evidence available on record to establish that the petitioner received or handled any alleged extortion amount. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been implicated merely on account of his relationship with co-accused Maninder Pal Singh, who is alleged to be one of the main accused. 3.2 It is argued that the petitioner is the uncle of the said co-accused and the prosecution has sought to rope him in only on the basis of his relationship. There is no allegation by the complainant that the petitioner ever threatened him, made any ransom call, participated in the firing incident or had any personal dispute with him. It is further contended that the petitioner is a 45-year-old farmer having clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case. The petitioner is in custody since 17.12.2025 and no further recovery is required from him. The investigation already stands completed and challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature. It is KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-23155-2026 4 contended that the present case relates to an organized extortion racket wherein the accused persons were allegedly involved in identifying financially sound persons, collecting their details and making ransom demands by using virtual numbers in the name of gang members. 5.1 Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was not falsely implicated but was nominated during the course of investigation on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency. It is argued that as per the prosecution version, the petitioner was involved in the conspiracy and was allegedly receiving/handling the extortion money generated by the other accused persons. 5.2 It is further submitted that the disclosure statements of co-accused persons reveal the role of the petitioner and connect him with the commission of the alleged offences. Learned State counsel contends that the allegations involve serious offences affecting public peace and security and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail at this stage. 7. Be that as it may, considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioner, who has remained in judicial custody since 17.12.2025, and the fact that his implication has arisen only during the course of investigation on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused persons, the role attributed to him is yet to be established by way of admissible evidence during the course of trial. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and there is no direct allegation against him regarding making any ransom call, participating in the alleged firing incident or threatening the complainant. The alleged role of the petitioner is limited to KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-23155-2026 5 receiving/handling the alleged extortion money, which is a matter to be examined during trial. It is also relevant to notice that no recovery of any weapon, money, electronic device or any other incriminating article has been effected from the petitioner. The investigation already stands completed and challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court, therefore, his further custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner is stated to be having clean antecedents and there is nothing on record to suggest that he is likely to abscond or misuse the concession of bail. Considering the nature of allegations, the material collected during investigation and the fact that the guilt of the petitioner is yet to be adjudicated during trial, which is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. 8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-23155-2026 6 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency. 2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. 3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-23155-2026 7 particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change. 7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 22.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh