IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

211 CRM-M-11749-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.04.2026 Rxxxxxx ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Bhupeshwar Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab *****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0016 dated 05.02.2025, registered under Sections 397, 324, 34 IPC and under Section 311, 118(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for about 7 months. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of the co- accused Raj Singh, who is in custody. No recovery that has been effected from the petitioner. He is suffering from HIV, report which has been referred to as Annexure P-4. Similarly circumstanced co-accused Sourab, who allegedly caused injuries and Sahil Bhardwaj @ Sahnu @ Sahil have been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 12.08.2025, Annexure P-3 and 01.04.2026, after being in custody for more than 05 months. Challan qua the other co-accused was presented on 04.04.2025, while supplementary qua the petitioner on 12.11.2025 but charges have not been framed so far. In all there are 07 prosecution witnesses. He is involved in 01 more case. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382

3. The custody certificate dated 13.04.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 06 months and 27 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner levelled by his co-accused with regard to the alleged incident. However, she is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the trial; co-accused enlarged on bail and the petitioner being involved in one more case.

5. Heard.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (supra) had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.”

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for 06 months and 27 days; co-accused are on bail; challan was presented on 12.11.2025, but charges are to be framed; there are a total of 07 prosecution witnesses, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds along with two sureties one whom should be local, to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper