212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Harjit Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Date of Decision: January 22, 2026 Date of Uploading: January 22, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Amit Arora, 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 bearing FIR No.26 dated 10.03.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 409 of the IPC, 1860, at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that a complaint was forwarded by the Additional Superintending Engineer, City Centre Division, PSPCL, Amritsar, to the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, after a thorough enquiry conducted by a senior police officer. The allegations against the petitioner are that, during his tenure as Junior Engineer at the Central Store, Verka, from 11.05.2018 to 30.05.2019, he caused the issuance of electrical material worth ₹64,32,799/- from the store. However, he neither accounted for the said material nor deposited the relevant records. Further, he failed to provide details of the sites where the electrical material was allegedly utilized during his tenure with PSPCL. Despite repeated correspondence from the department, the petitioner did not respond or comply.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that allegations against the petitioner pertain to the year 2018-2019, whereas, the FIR in question was registered in the year 2025 and the police, thus submitted, has not appropriately considered entire documentary material available in the office. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a man aged 60 years and hence, is not in a position to influence witnesses etc. Learned counsel has further submitted that trial emanating form the FIR in question is magisterial one, conclusion of which, indubitably, will take long as total 12 prosecution witnesses have been cited and none has been examined, and even, charge(s) has not been framed till date. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised 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 21.01.2026, 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.

Before delving into the matter further, it would be germane to refer herein the case law governing the issue in hand:

5.1 Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT

429, relevant whereof reads as under:

“10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.

11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present