CRM-M-17912-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 221 CRM-M-17912-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:22.07.2026 Gurpreet Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Meenu, 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.26, dated 20.01.2026, registered under Sections 310(4), 310(5) and 304 of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City South, Moga, District Moga. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a secret information received by ASI Ajit Singh to the effect that on 20.01.2026, the petitioner along with co-accused Deepak Kumar @ Monu, Ashwani Kumar, Manpreet Singh, Shikander Singh, Harpreet Singh and Lakhvir Singh @ Manna, who were allegedly habitual offenders involved in the commission of snatching and dacoity, was present in the outer ground of D.M. College HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17912-2026 (O&M) -2- while armed with deadly weapons. Believing the secret information to be true, a raid was conducted by the police, upon which the petitioner and the co-accused were apprehended, and the weapons recovered from their possession were taken into police custody. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and the same now stand completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Recovery of a sword allegedly used by him has already been effected. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. He is in custody since 20.01.2026. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. Similarly situated co-accused Deepak Kumar @ Monu has already been extended benefit of regular bail by this Court. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. His antecedents are not clean. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have been involved in the commission of decoity/snatching. The allegations prima facie show his complicity in the crime. However, he is in custody since 20.01.2026. He is not required for further investigation, which already HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17912-2026 (O&M) -3- stands concluded. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future as even charges are yet to be framed. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. 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. 7. 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. 8. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 22.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document