JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J. 

1. The instant petition has been preferred 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.244 dated 18.09.2025 registered under Sections 333, 326(g), 115(2), 324(4), 324(5), 191(3) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) (corresponding to Sections 452, 436, 323, 427, 148, 149 of IPC) at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar Rural.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got recorded by the complainant Shindi Kaur, alleging that on 13.09.2025, her husband Bau Singh was assaulted by Nikka Singh. He had sustained injuries and was admitted in Civil Hospital, Ajnala. On the same night when she was sleeping in her house, the petitioner accompanied by the co-accused and 20/25 unknown persons forcibly entered her house. They were armed with weapons and hurled abuses to her family members and herself. On resistance, they started extending beatings to them. To save themselves, they fled from house and concealed themselves in the house of their neighbourers. The petitioner and the co-accused had damaged the household articles kept in her house, set fire to her clothing, bedding and other articles; demolished the boundary wall and also took away gold ornaments and cash amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from her house. The reason was that a minor scuffle had taken place between Nikka and her son Major Singh.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 27.09.2025 and is in custody since then. Investigation now stands concluded.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on false and general allegations. It is a case of version and cross-version. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. There is no medico-legal report to show that the complainant and her family members had sustained any injury. No recovery has been effected at the instance of the petitioner. He is in custody since 27.09.2025. He is not required for further investigation. His antecedents are clean. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. Co-accused, Gurpreet Singh has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Notice of motion.

6. On the asking of the Court, learned State counsel accepts notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is argued by learned State counsel that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature, as he alongwith unknown persons trespassed the property of the complainant, damaged the house of the complainant by forming an unlawful assembly and beaten them. It is, therefore, argued that 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 at considerable length.

8. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, entered into the house of the complainant, extended beatings to her family members and herself and damaged her house. However, no injury has been sustained by the complainant party. Though, he has been named in the FIR, however, no specific overt act has been attributed to him. He is in custody since 27.09.2025. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in the near future since only challan has been filed. No article has been recovered from the petitioner. It is well settled proposition of law that pre- trial incarceration should not be a 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 nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the part attribute