AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the petitioner to secure regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 77 dated 12.04.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 125 & 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.04.2025. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further urged that a bare perusal of the FIR would reflect that the petitioner was not known to the FIR-complainant whereas other co-accused were known to the FIR-complainant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further urged that assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the petitioner (herein) is neither attributed the fire shot nor stated to be driving the car in question. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 21.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
The petitioner was arrested on 13.04.2026. Challan, upon culmination of investigation, was presented on 05.06.2026. Total 9 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is the conceded position before this Court that none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined.
Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, the role ascribed to the petitioner qua the FIR in question, challan (upon culmination of investigation) already having been filed, the petitioner being in custody for more than 5 months; this Court is inclined to afford the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
The rival contentions raised at the Bar, 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.
Further, as per custody certificate dated 21.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner is stated to have suffered incarceration for a period of 5 months & 5 days and is not shown to be involved in any other case/FIR.
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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/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 cellphone 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 the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove, or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of the petitioner's bail.
Ordered accordingly.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.