205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Prince @ Shera ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Date of decision: November 14, 2025 Date of Uploading: November 14, 2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Ms. Saroj Kumari, Advocae and Mr. Vinod K. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present second 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 bearing FIR No.51 dated 06.04.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms Act’) (Sections 54 & 59 of the Arms Act and Sections 201 & 411 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Division B, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar, Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, committed a daylight dacoity at ICICI Bank, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar, on 06.04.2024 at about 2:05 p.m., while being armed with deadly weapons, including a revolver. Allegedly, the complainant, namely, Malik Singh, Relationship Manager, was present in the bank along with other officials when co-accused, namely, Inderjit Singh @ Sajan, Suraj Singh @ Suraj, and another associate entered the premises and threatened the staff by displaying what appeared to be a revolver. Inderjit Singh @ Sajan and Suraj Singh @ Suraj addressed each other by name during the incident and thereafter removed ₹12,78,122/- from the cashier’s seat before fleeing from the rear side of the bank. The entire occurrence was captured in the bank’s CCTV footage. After their arrest, both co-accused made disclosure statements alleging that the petitioner had also accompanied them during the commission of the dacoity.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 08.04.2024. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that requisite TIP (Test Identification Parade) was not carried out by the police. Learned counsel has further argued that prime private prosecution witness, namely, Malik Singh already stands examined as prosecution witness. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that 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 the custody certificate dated

13.11.2025 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 08.04.2024, whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 07.06.2024. Total 12 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, only 01 has been examined till date. Indubitably, the conclusion of trial will take its own time.

At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus:

“18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted