CRM-M-22003-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 CRM-M-22003-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:24.07.2026 Mithun ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant 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 arising out of FIR No.46, dated 11.02.2026, registered under Sections 307, 3(5) and 317(2) of the BNS, at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by complainant – Chhotu Ram alleging that on 11.02.2026, he was going on his bicycle to perform his duty in the factory, wherein he worked and while on the way, he was intercepted by two youths, who came riding on an activa vehicle. The pillion rider opened an attack upon him with a datar. To ward off the blow, the HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22003-2026 (O&M) -2- complainant put forward his left hand and one of his fingers injured and blood started oozing out of the same. The said youth then forcibly snatched his mobile phone and then both of them fled from the spot. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. On the basis of secret information, the petitioner and co-accused Sumit Kumar were apprehended. On conducting their search, one TVS scooter was recovered from the petitioner whereas the snatched mobile phone and the weapon of offence were recovered from the conscious possession of co-accused Sumit Kumar. They were formally arrested. They were identified by the complainant. Investigation now stands completed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. Infact, a trivial scuffle had taken place between the complainant and co-accused as well as himself while they were going on a scooter. The petitioner had lost control of his scooter and accidently hit the bicycle of the complainant, due to which, the complainant sustained a minor injury. His mobile phone had fallen but a false story has been concocted. He is in custody since 11.02.2026. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is involved in three more cases. There are chances of his absconding or committing the HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22003-2026 (O&M) -3- similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have snatched the mobile phone of the complainant by intercepting him and by voluntarily causing injury on his person. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner. However, he has been in custody for a period of more than 05 months. He is not required for further investigation as challan already stands presented. His continued detention would not serve any fruitful purpose. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing and that the bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Keeping in view the facts as discussed above, the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22003-2026 (O&M) -4- 9. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 24.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document