IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 02.02.2026 AJAY PAL SINGH RAGHAV @ AJAY PAL RAGHAV ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.518 dated 15.08.2024 registered under Sections 127(2), 140(2), 3(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) at Police Station City Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad.

2. As per the allegations, on 14.08.2024, the co-accused Ashok Tailor, in connivance with the petitioner, abducted the complainant Kunal Paswan and while extending threats to him took him to his house and raised demand of a sum of Rs.2,60,000/-, otherwise threatened to kill him. The petitioner had also kept the victim confined in his room and it was only on intimation being given to the Police by the brother of the complainant that he was released from the custody of the petitioner and the co-accused. The petitioner was arrested on

16.08.2024. Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, stressed that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

4. Status report and custody certificate has been filed by learned State counsel. It is argued by learned State counsel that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. There are chances of intimidating the complainant or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by counsel for both the parties.

6. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused is alleged to have abducted the victim and have extended threats to him, after confining him in illegal manner. He is in custody for a period of 01 year 05 months and 15 days. There is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in the near future since none out of 23 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody anymore. It is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post- conviction sentence and that even bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Taking into consideration his clean antecedents, the period of incarceration and the above discussed facts, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7. It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

8. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.(cid:1)

(MANISHA BATRA)

JUDGE

02.02.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:8)(cid:1)