CRM-M-22962-2026 1 216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22962-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 BALJINDER SINGH @ BUNTY ...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 a ransom demand of 1 crore was made through a voice recording received by his son. It was further alleged that thereafter, on 20.11.2025 at about 09:45 PM, two unidentified persons arrived on a motorcycle and fired gunshots at the complainant’s residence. The said incident was captured in CCTV footage. Subsequently, when the complainant contacted the number from which the ransom message was received, the caller KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-22962-2026 2 allegedly threatened him with serious consequences in case the extortion demand was not fulfilled. During the course of investigation, the police allegedly found involvement of the petitioner and other accused persons. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner was involved in receiving the extortion money on behalf of the accused persons and was part of the conspiracy. The petitioner was nominated in the present FIR vide rapat No.29 dated 17.12.2025 on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused persons. It is further alleged that the petitioner’s son and other co-accused persons were collecting information about affluent persons and were making extortion calls using the names of gang members, whereas the petitioner was allegedly receiving the extortion money. After completion of investigation, the petitioner is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 109, 308(4), 351(3), 3(5), 111, 61(2) and 48 of the BNS, 2023 along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent. It is contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name surfaced only during the course of investigation on the basis of disclosure statements allegedly suffered by the co-accused persons. It is argued that there is no direct evidence, independent material, or legally admissible evidence available on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the entire prosecution case, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, is based upon the alleged disclosure statements of co-accused persons and the allegation that the petitioner had received the alleged extortion money. It is contended that no KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-22962-2026 3 recovery of any extortion amount, weapon, mobile phone, or any other incriminating article has been effected from the petitioner. There is also no evidence showing any financial transaction, communication, or digital linkage between the petitioner and the alleged offence. 3.2 It is further submitted that the petitioner has been nominated only because he is the father of the main accused and the prosecution has attempted to implicate the family members of the accused persons without any substantive material against them. Learned counsel submits that mere relationship with the co-accused cannot be a ground to attribute criminal liability to the petitioner in the absence of any independent evidence. 3.3 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a 52-year- old farmer and has clean antecedents. He has been in custody since 17.12.2025 and no further recovery is required from him. The investigation has already been completed and the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. It is argued that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and keeping the petitioner behind bars would amount to pre- trial incarceration. It is further contended that the allegations against the petitioner are distinguishable from the main accused, as the petitioner is neither alleged to have made any ransom call nor is he alleged to have participated in the firing incident. His alleged role is only based upon the assumption that he received the alleged extortion money, which is yet to be established during trial. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 21.07.2026, KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-22962-2026 4 which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 06 months and 29 days. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that the petitioner was not a mere bystander but was actively involved in the alleged extortion racket and was receiving the extortion money collected by the co-accused persons. 6.1 Learned State counsel further submits that the investigation has revealed that the petitioner’s son and other accused persons were involved in collecting information regarding affluent persons and making extortion calls, while the petitioner was allegedly involved in handling the proceeds of crime. It is argued that the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused persons and his role has emerged during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in other criminal cases relating to similar allegations and, therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the offences, his antecedents and the larger conspiracy, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel, thus, prays for dismissal of the present bail application. 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 name surfaced only during the course of investigation on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused persons, without any direct evidence or recovery of any incriminating article from him, it is evident that the role attributed to the petitioner is yet to be established KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-22962-2026 5 during trial. The investigation stands completed and the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. Further, the petitioner is neither alleged to have made any ransom call nor to have participated in the alleged firing incident; his alleged role is only that of receiving the alleged extortion money. The petitioner has clean antecedents and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the continued 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. 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 KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-22962-2026 6 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 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 KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-22962-2026 7 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