Manjinder Singh vs State of Punjab

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

As per the allegations, on 14.02.2026, the complainant Karamjit Singh was going towards his house to Amritsar on his bike. While on the way, he was intercepted by three youths who came riding on a motorbike. Two of them were carrying pistols and one was having a datar. After alighting from their vehicle, they brandished their weapons and caught hold of the complainant. They forcibly took out the mobile phone and cash amount of Rs.32,000/- from the complainant and then by snatching his motorbike, they fled from the spot. On his complaint, the aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant. He was arrested on 17.02.2026. Co-accused were also arrested. Investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. He has been nominated on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant. There is delay of two days in lodging of the FIR which has not been explained. No recovery has been effected from his conscious possession. The co-accused Varinder Singh has been extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have robbed the complainant of his belongings. He was not named in the FIR. He has suffered incarceration of a period for more than six months. His antecedents are clean. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The well settled proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre trial incarceration of an accused should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. The detention prior to trial should not become punitive. In view of the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued detention of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.