IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.256 CRM-M-9154-2026 Decided on : 24.03.2026 Lovepreet Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab for the respondent(s)-State.

Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.48 dated 15.07.2023, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, at Police Station Tarsikka, Amritsar Rural.

2. Brief facts, as per the prosecution case, are that the petitioner along with other co-accused duped the complainant for a sum of Rs.37,00,000/- on the pretext of sending his sons abroad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that he has no concern with the said offence. Learned counsel contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally vague and that the FIR was registered on the bald statement of complainant. The petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 03 months and 14 days. The investigation in this case is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been framed and out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only 10 have been examined till date. He further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, filed the status report as well as custody certificate of the petitioner, which are taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He further submits that the petitioner is involved in multiple other cases of similar nature meaning thereby he is an habitual offender.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has played an active role in the crime and, thus, does not deserve the concession of bail.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year 03 months and 14 days; investigation is complete; challan stands presented, charges have been framed; out of 19 prosecution witnesses only 10 have been examined till date and the fact that the trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

9. The foundational concept of the criminal jurisprudence is to ensure speedy trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation against the accused and expiring with the final verdict of t