IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.02.2025 Jaspreet Singh @ Jassu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Robindeep Singh Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab. N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail in case FIR No.110 dated 15.07.2024 registered under Sections 109(1) 126(2) 115(2), 117(2) and 03(5) of BNS at Police Station Sadar Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case. As per the allegations levelled by the complainant, the petitioner was armed with a Kappa and had caused injuries to the complainant. However, the injured in the present case had suffered two injuries and both the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon. Thus, the version of the complainant was highly unbelievable and improbable. The petitioner was arrested on 05.08.2024 and is in custody since then.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that four more criminal cases are registered against the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of regular bail.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Even though, 04 more FIR’s have been registered against the petitioner, but in the present case, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P., and another 2020(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 831 that petitioner can never be confined in jail for an indefinite period as the pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot be the basis to refuse the prayer of bail. Similar observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another 2012(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586. Still further, the petitioner is in custody since 05.08.2024 and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented against the petitioner and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future.

6. In view of the above, without commenting any further on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court proceedings except on the prior permission of the Court concerned.

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if already not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect.

(v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the concerned Court, mentioning his ordinary place of residence and number of mobile phone, which shall be used by him during the pendency of the trial. In case of change of place of residence/mobile number, he shall share the details with the concerned Court/learned Trial Court.

(vi) In case, the petitioner gets involved in any other criminal activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed seriously and the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail granted to the present petitioner.

(vii) The concerned Court may insist tw