IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.03.2026 GURVINDER SINGH ALIAS PRINKLE ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate and Mr. G.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate and Ms. Shravya Doomra, Advocate for the complainant.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

CRM-2368-2026 Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Annexure A-1 is taken on record.

CRM-M-61156-2025

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.278 dated 17.09.2025 under Sections 74, 75, 296, 356(1), 356(2), 79 and 111 of BNS and Sections 67 and 67(A) of IT Act, and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Division No.5, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.

2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present bail petition is that prior the registration of the instant FIR, another FIR under Section 509 of IPC and Sections 67 and 67-A of IT Act was registered by the comlainant against the petitioner, pursuant to which he was arrested and later released on bail. After his release, the petitioner allegedly used obscene and derogatory language through social medical platforms and also passed objectionable remarks, including remarks allegedly relating to the complainant’s wife.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant FIR, allegations levelled in which are wholly misconceived and unsupported by any cogent evidence. The foundational premise of the case rests on certain electronic material including videos and screenshots, which have not been subjected to any forensic examination or authentication. It is submitted that in the absence of such verification, the contents of the said material cannot be accepted at face value. Moreover, the same does not even disclose the commission of any act on the part of the petitioner constituting an offence. Nowhere in the unauthenticated recordings is there any use of derogatory or threatening language by the petitioner being directed towards the complainant, his family members, any advocate or any officer. Moreover, there is also no independent allegation levelled against the petitioner by any competent authority. Learned senior counsel further contends that reliance on the earlier FIR is irrelevant to the present allegations, and cannot supply the missing ingredients of the offence now alleged. It is submitted that material witness i.e. the complainant stands examined before the learned trial Court. He further submits that the petitioner, aged about 33 years, has already undergone an actual custody of 6 months and 4 days.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. She has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 6 months and 4 days. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. The charges were framed on 27.02.2026 and out of a total of 12 prosecution witnesses, one has been examined. She submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v.

CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus: "21.In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of ba