AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
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.74 dated 11.03.2025 under Section 420 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, District Gurdaspur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 25.06.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner was merely helping the complainant-side in the endeavour to go abroad, but when the same could not fructify to the satisfaction of the complainant, the petitioner came to be implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has further submitted that upon culmination of investigation qua the petitioner, challan already stands presented. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is not in a position to influence the prosecution witnesses. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in multiple other case/FIR(s). Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 01.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
The petitioner was arrested on 25.06.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 21.08.2025. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited out of which 5 have been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the factum of challan having been presented, 17 prosecution witnesses having been cited, out of which 5 have been examined till date, and the trial emanating from the FIR in question become magisterial one and the likelihood of the trial culminating in near future being bleak; this Court is inclined to grant the concession of regular bail. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel 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 As per custody certificate dated 01.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 months and 30 days & is shown to be involved in other cases/FIRs. 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.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
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:-
The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
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.
The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
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 for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.