211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Jodhbir Singh @ Jodha

….Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab ….Respondent

Date of decision: January 09, 2026

Date of Uploading: January 09, 2026

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:- Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

*****

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.196 dated 14.09.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 7 & 25/ 54/ 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms Act’) and Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), registered at Police Station Cantonment District Police

Commissionerate.

2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to Arms Act involving alleged recovery of 3 pistols of 32 bore and one revolver 32 bore

from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 17.09.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that mandatory provisions of law have not been complied with by allegedly effecting recovery from the petitioner and, thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further argued that, in any case, investigation qua FIR in question is already complete and challan stands presented and conclusion of the trial will take long time since 12 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated

08.01.2026 in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 17.09.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 13.11.2025. It is not in dispute before this Court that out of total 12 cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take its own time. The rival contention raised at 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.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 08.01.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 03 months and 19 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the appellant is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the appellant 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, f