IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 10.02.2026 BINDU KUMAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Piyush Seha, Advocate and Mr. Raghav Taneja, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition filed 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.117 dated 03.11.2023 registered under Sections 365, 341, 342, 323, 379B, 506, 500, 148 and 149 of IPC (Sections 325, 355 and 201 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Bahawala, Abohar, District Faizlka.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by complainant Abhishek alleging that he was a labourer by profession. On the night of 30.10.2023, he had gone to attend a game show in his village. While he was returning back, he was intercepted by accused Neel Kamal, Pankaj and Vishal, who came riding on two bikes. They opened an attack upon him and caused injuries to him with a stick wrapped in cloth. They thereafter forced him to sit on a motorbike and took him near to Village Sukhchain. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused were present there. They also extended beatings to him and prepared a video. They uttered expletives words. The petitioner forced him to rub his nose on dunghill by extending threats to kill him and then he was thrown near his house. The motive as attributed to the petitioner and the co-accused was that complainant’s friend Aseem Bishnoi had eloped with cousin sister of the co-accused Kamal and the petitioner as well as co-accused were nursing a grudge against them.

Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is a delay of 03 days in lodging the FIR which has not been explained satisfactorily. No recovery has been effected from him. He is not required for further investigation. He is in continuous detention for a period of over 01 year and 01 month. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. There are no chances of conclusion of trial as even charges have not been framed against him. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. It is argued that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as by forming membership of unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, he had assaulted the victim who had been abducted. The victim had sustained simple as well as grievous injuries and he had been dishonoured. The antecedents of the petitioner are not clean. There are chances of his committing similar offences or intimidating the witnesses, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is in custody for a period of 01 year, 1 month and 21 days. The trial is yet to start as even charges have not been framed yet. The petitioner cannot be denied benefit of bail due to his involvement in other cases. The continued detention of the petitioner is not likely to serve any fruitful purpose. It is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of post-conviction sentencing and bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody, the part attributed to him and the attendant facts and circumstances but without meaning to make any comment on the merit of the case, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to