CRM-M-46928-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 250 CRM-M-46928-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:26.08.2026. Narinder Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mohak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AAG, Punjab. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant petition has been petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.43 dated 08.05.2024 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, at Police Station Kathunangal, District Amritsar. 2. As per the allegations, the present petitioner had induced the complainant – Paramjit Singh to send his son abroad and on that premise, he had extracted an amount of Rs.14.50 lakhs from him. Neither his son was sent abroad nor his money had been returned. Fake air tickets and visa had been given by the petitioner to the son of the complainant. By alleging that he had been duped at the hands of the petitioner, he prayed for taking action in the matter. HARJEET KAUR 2026.08.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-46928-2026 (O&M) -2- 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 26.03.2025 and is in custody since then. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of about 01 year and 05 months. Investigation now stads completed. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in another case of similar nature cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Notice of motion. 6. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and while placing on record the custody certificate of the petitioner, it is vehemently argued by him that the petitioner is a habitual offender being involved in another case of similar nature. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The petitioner is in custody for over a period of 01 year and 05 months. Obviously the trial will take considerable time to conclude. The offences for which he had been booked and challaned are triable by the Magistrate. The investigation stands concluded. The well settled proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial incarceration HARJEET KAUR 2026.08.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-46928-2026 (O&M) -3- should not be replica of post-conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comments on the merits of the case lest the same prejudice the trial in any manner, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 26.08.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.08.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document