CRM-M No.39013 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 243 ***** CRM-M No.39013 of 2026 Date of decision : 23.7.2026 Date of uploading : 24.7.2026 Karan @ Sabi ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.11 dated 14.2.2025 under Sections 109, 3(5), 103, 61(1), 249(B) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural. 2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- ‘Statement of Baldev Singh S/o Joginder Singh R/o Gali Baba Lakhdata Mahal PS Kamboj age about 62 years mobile no. 8283862968 stated that I am resident of above address and is a hard worker. I have two sons, elder one is Mandeep Singh age about 27 years, younger than him is Rohit @ Gingi age about 20 years and three daughters eldest is Komal age 22 years younger than her is Kajal age 21 years and younger than her is Priya age 18 years. On 13.02.2025 I and my son Mandeep Singh and my nephew Manpreet Singh S/o Jaspal Singh three of us ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.39013 of 2026 -2- were having talks on the road near Ajit Kiryana Store, at 11/11.30 PM two youngsters came after riding an activa from the side of main road and suddenly stopped the activa near to us and the pillion rider fired gunshot with the pistol in his hand on my son Mandeep Singh with intention to kill which hit him inside his stomach on the left side. After inflicting firearm shot, both of them immediately run from there on their activa towards main road. Due to darkness, I could not recognize them at that time. And we after arranging the vehicle got our son admitted in Amandeep Hospital Amritsar. now I have got to know that the persons riding the activa were Akashdeep Singh @ Kassi S/o Lalli was driving the activa and the pillion rider was David Masih S/o Sonu Masih R/o Mohalla Baba Jiwan Singh Nagar, PS Chhehharta. The rivalry is that my son Mandeep Singh has registered one case against David Masih and Akashdeep Singh @ Kassi and due to that they are having rivalry. My son Mandeep Singh is under medical treatment. I and my nephew Manpreet Singh has seen this occurrence. Legal action be taken against the above accused persons. I have got my statement recorded in the presence of my nephew Manpreet Singh and I have found it to be true after hearing. SD/- Baldev Singh above endorsed SD/- Manpreet Singh verified SD/- Sarwan Singh ASI PS Kamboj date 14.02.2025.’ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 24.3.2025. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is not named in FIR in question and his name surfaced only on account of GD No.30 dated 23.3.2025, wherein it was stated that the complainant-side earlier did not mention the name of the petitioner on account of fear. Learned counsel has further urged that the above said GD reflects that co-accused David Masih has fired upon the deceased Mandeep Singh and the petitioner was merely accompanying him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a man aged 23 years and already suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.39013 of 2026 -3- arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 22.7.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 24.3.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 30.6.2025 and subsequently filed. Total 26 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is conceded case before this Court that none have been examined till date. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:- “19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.” ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.39013 of 2026 -4- The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per the custody certificate dated 22.7.2026, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more FIR. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 6.2 Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the factum of the petitioner not being FIR-named accused, his name surfacing in subsequent GD recorded on 23.3.2025, ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.39013 of 2026 -5- whereas the FIR in question was recorded on 14.2.2025, no active role being attributed to the petitioner even in the said GD, the petitioner having suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 3 months and 21 days, this Court is inclined to grant the concession of regular bail. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.39013 of 2026 -6- 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 23.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.24 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document