IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12359-2026 Date of decision: 06.04.2026 PARAMJIT SINGH @ SONU @ PAMMA ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, for the petitioner.

Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.90 dated 18.09.2024 registered under Sections 309(4), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act (Sections 310(2), 61(2), 249, 111(2), 111(3) and 111(5) of the BNS were added subsequently, at Police Station Kathu Nangal, District Amritsar.

2. Brief facts of the present case, as per the prosecution, are that some unknown persons had committed dacoity in the HDFC Bank by threatening the officials of the bank and looted Rs.25,70,580/- on gunpoint. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has harboured co-accused Kashmir Singh @ Sheru, who is involved in the alleged crime of dacoity.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the alleged incident. He further contends that neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was named in the FIR. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by one of the co-accused. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He further argued that the allegations against the petitioner are that he had provided shelter to co-accused Kashmir Singh @ Sheru. Even if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, then at the most, the offence of harbouring is made out against the present petitioner which is bailable. Further, there is no allegation of his involvement in the actual planning, execution or facilitation of dacoity. The petitioner is in custody since 12.10.2024. He submits that similarly placed co-accused-Anuradha has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2025 passed in CRM-M-40380-2025. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented, charges have been framed, out of 33 prosecution witnesses none has been examined and as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned State counsel has filed the status report and custody certificate of the petitioner, which are taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in one more case meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 05 months, investigation in the case is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been framed; out of 33 prosecution witnesses none has been examined; similarly placed co- accused has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article

21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Reliance is placed upon in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Crimina