CRM-M IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 212 ARVINDER SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE Present: KIRTI SINGH 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short regular bail to Section 6 Nagar. 2. M-24759-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision: ARVINDER SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 69 of BNS, registered at Police Station The contents of the FIR are reproduced below: “Copy of statement, "statement of Om Prakash, resident of Hous Chandigarh, aged about 35 years, mobile No.8427908727. Stated that I am resident of the above said address and I do private job. I became acquainted with Arvinder Singh Sekhon son of Baldev Singh, resident of Flat No.802, Tower B May 2023. Thereafter, our mutual friendship increased. During our conversation, Arvinder Singh told me that he wants to marry me. Upon which, I believed Arvinder Singh and we got into a relationship. In October 2023, shift to the flat with him, upon which, I shifted to Flat No.802, Maya Garden City, Zirakpur with Arvinder Singh. Arvinder Singh's mother Charanjit Kaur, sister Rimpi Sekho, brother Gurvinder Singh also lived in the same flat. When I asked Arvinder Singh to get married, Arvinder Singh told me that his brother Gurvinder Singh's wedding is on 24th November 2023. After Gurvinder Singh's wedding, we will IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24759-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondent MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner(s). akanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short- ‘BNSS’), is for grant of the petitioner, in case FIR No.82 dated 17.02.2026, under registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District S reproduced below:- Copy of statement, "statement of xxx daughter of Sh. Om Prakash, resident of House No.2676, Mauli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh, aged about 35 years, mobile No.8427908727. Stated that I am resident of the above said address and I do private job. I became acquainted with Arvinder Singh Sekhon son of Baldev Singh, ower B-5, Maya Garden City, Ghazipur in May 2023. Thereafter, our mutual friendship increased. During our conversation, Arvinder Singh told me that he wants to marry me. Upon which, I believed Arvinder Singh and we got into a Arvinder Singh told me that I should shift to the flat with him, upon which, I shifted to Flat No.802, Maya Garden City, Zirakpur with Arvinder Singh. Arvinder Singh's mother Charanjit Kaur, sister Rimpi Sekho, brother Gurvinder Singh also me flat. When I asked Arvinder Singh to get married, Arvinder Singh told me that his brother Gurvinder Singh's wedding is on 24th November 2023. After Gurvinder Singh's wedding, we will ......Petitioner .....Respondents Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of or grant of , under SAS daughter of Sh. e No.2676, Mauli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh, aged about 35 years, mobile No.8427908727. Stated that I am resident of the above said address and I do private job. I became acquainted with Arvinder Singh Sekhon son of Baldev Singh, 5, Maya Garden City, Ghazipur in May 2023. Thereafter, our mutual friendship increased. During our conversation, Arvinder Singh told me that he wants to marry me. Upon which, I believed Arvinder Singh and we got into a Arvinder Singh told me that I should shift to the flat with him, upon which, I shifted to Flat No.802, Maya Garden City, Zirakpur with Arvinder Singh. Arvinder Singh's mother Charanjit Kaur, sister Rimpi Sekho, brother Gurvinder Singh also me flat. When I asked Arvinder Singh to get married, Arvinder Singh told me that his brother Gurvinder Singh's wedding is on 24th November 2023. After Gurvinder Singh's wedding, we will SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case made by with her on the false petitioner factual ma and conse fact, both partners, h years. Ho strained, l It is subm of false p M-24759-2026 (O&M) -2- also get married. Gurvinder Singh got married in November 2023, even thereafter, I asked Arvinder Singh to get married many times, but Arvinder Singh did not get Singh kept having physical relations with me continuously. I asked Arvinder Singh to get married again on 09.02.2026. On 13.02.20 Arvinder Singh told me that there is dispute in the family because of the reason of relationship of both of us, therefore, we both should shift to somewhere else. On 13.02. flat and rented a house in Panchsheel Enclave, after some time, asking me to come back. Since thereafter, Arvinder Singh switched off his phone. In the evening, when I went to Flat No.802, Tower B, Maya Garden City, Zirakpur, Arvinder Singh's mother spoke to me right and wrong. Upon w Later I came to know that Arvinder Singh has left me and gone to Dubai and will not come back. Arvinder Singh has had physical relations with me by promising to marry me. Now, he has refused to marry me and has left me. Due to which, floor cleaner, thereafter, I was admitted to CHC Dhakoli for treatment and from Dhakoli Hospital, I was referred to GMCH 32 Chandigarh, where after treatment, I was discharged. Appropriate legal action may kindly be taken again Attested by Sd/- xxx” Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case the complainant. The allegation with her on the false pretext of marriage petitioner, it is submitted, are patently atrix is that the petitioner and th enting adults, were in a long standing consensual relationship h the parties, who were previously had lived together with the famil owever, relations between the leading to the registration of the mitted that there is no material on promise of marriage against the also get married. Gurvinder Singh got married in November 2023, hereafter, I asked Arvinder Singh to get married many times, but Arvinder Singh did not get married. During this time, Arvinder Singh kept having physical relations with me continuously. I asked Arvinder Singh to get married again on 09.02.2026. On 13.02.20 Arvinder Singh told me that there is dispute in the family because of the reason of relationship of both of us, therefore, we both should shift to somewhere else. On 13.02.-2026, Arvinder took me from the flat and rented a house in Panchsheel Enclave, Zirakpur and left after some time, asking me to come back. Since thereafter, Arvinder Singh switched off his phone. In the evening, when I went to Flat No.802, Tower B, Maya Garden City, Zirakpur, Arvinder Singh's mother spoke to me right and wrong. Upon which, I returned back. Later I came to know that Arvinder Singh has left me and gone to Dubai and will not come back. Arvinder Singh has had physical relations with me by promising to marry me. Now, he has refused to marry me and has left me. Due to which, I was disturbed and drank a floor cleaner, thereafter, I was admitted to CHC Dhakoli for treatment and from Dhakoli Hospital, I was referred to GMCH 32 Chandigarh, where after treatment, I was discharged. Appropriate legal action may kindly be taken against Arvinder Singh. Sd/- xx Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the statem ns of establishing physical relatio pretext of marriage, as have been levelled against sweeping and baseless. The t he complainant, both being mat were in a long standing consensual relationship. previously divorced from their respect ly of the petitioner for a period o e two had subsequently beco e present FIR against the petitioner n record to establish the allegatio petitioner, aged 41 years, who also get married. Gurvinder Singh got married in November 2023, hereafter, I asked Arvinder Singh to get married many times, married. During this time, Arvinder Singh kept having physical relations with me continuously. I asked Arvinder Singh to get married again on 09.02.2026. On 13.02.2026, Arvinder Singh told me that there is dispute in the family because of the reason of relationship of both of us, therefore, we both should 2026, Arvinder took me from the Zirakpur and left after some time, asking me to come back. Since thereafter, Arvinder Singh switched off his phone. In the evening, when I went to Flat No.802, Tower B, Maya Garden City, Zirakpur, Arvinder Singh's hich, I returned back. Later I came to know that Arvinder Singh has left me and gone to Dubai and will not come back. Arvinder Singh has had physical relations with me by promising to marry me. Now, he has refused to I was disturbed and drank a floor cleaner, thereafter, I was admitted to CHC Dhakoli for treatment and from Dhakoli Hospital, I was referred to GMCH 32 Chandigarh, where after treatment, I was discharged. Appropriate xxx. submits that the ment ons the true ture . In tive of 3 ome petitioner. ons has SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M remained against hi 4. submissions made by the l instructions from involved in the commission of the offence. custody certificate in Court today and the same custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of days. 5. parties. 6. observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 M-24759-2026 (O&M) -3- in actual custody of 21 days. im. Per contra, learned State counsel submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. instructions from ASI Labh Singh, state involved in the commission of the offence. custody certificate in Court today and the same custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus: "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appe accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated tha custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "ne country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances There is no other case registe learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the earned counsel for the petitioner. She, upon states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. , relevant paras whereof reads thus: In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an rial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances." ered vehemently opposed the , upon that the petitioner was actively has filed As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 21 Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the Sanjay Chandra v. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the arance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of . The object of . Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried t detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 7. bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and material on record. 8. trial in the imminent trial is not imminent. Th for a period of 9. both matu While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or 10. the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of considerations stated herein the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued detention pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already M-24759-2026 (O&M) -4- Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and prima facie, the involvement of the accused and the material on record. Reverting to the case in hand, it is e present FIR is yet to commenc t. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of 21 days. Prima facie it is the case that ure adults, had been in a long hile the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of justice. Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated herein-before, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of , the involvement of the accused and the case in hand, it is borne from the record t ce, and the conclusion thereof is The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of e petitioner has already remained in actual custody at the petitioner and the complainant gstanding consensual relationsh hile the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the influencing the course of justice. ently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair Therefore, upon taking into account all the before, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of , the involvement of the accused and the that not The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of e petitioner has already remained in actual custody complainant, hip. hile the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the ently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair Therefore, upon taking into account all the before, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary rule and jail is the exception’, in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22. 11. may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the con Magistrate. 12. prosecution shall be at liberty before this Court. M-24759-2026 (O&M) -5- undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’, as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the con Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre-trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:- The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the is accused of, or for commission of The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the to move an application for cancellation of bail undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of includes trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety cerned learned trial Court/Duty The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the is accused of, or for commission of The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the to move an application for cancellation of bail SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 13. expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. 14. disposed of. May 07, 202 SwarnjitS M-24759-2026 (O&M) -6- However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would the present case which Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document