IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 16.02.2026 JINNAT SHEKH @ SHAFIJUL ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ashish Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been 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.0024 dated 09.04.2025 registered under Sections 305 and 331(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) (Section 317(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Division No.4, District Ludhiana.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by complainant S.K. Nasim Uddin on 09.04.2025 alleging therein that he was running a jewellery business at Ludhiana and was having a shop therein, where around 15 workers were employed. On 05.04.2025, he had brought gold jewelleries of 200 grams from Sirhind for the purpose of designing. On 06.04.2025, his brother had also brought 300 grams of gold from another jeweler for designing purposes. The complainant alleged that on

6.04.2025, one person came to their shop and introduced himself as S.K. Rajesh. He told the complainant that he had come from Kolkata for the purpose of crafting jewellery as called by them. He stayed at their shop and worked with them and crafted the jewelleries. However, in the intervening night of 8/9.04.2025, by stealing gold jewlleries weighing 500 grams, he left their shop. This fact was confirmed by them after watching the CCTV footage of the shop. By alleging that the above said S.K. Rajesh had stolen gold jewelleries from his shop, the complainant prayed for taking action in the matter.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation it was revealed that the petitioner by impersonating himself with the name of S.K. Rajesh had stolen the jewellery from the shop of the complainant. He was taken into custody in some other case and was joined into investigation of this case by way of securing production warrants. He was arrested on 11.10.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and disclosed that 300 grams out of stolen gold had been sold by him to one Ziyaul Haque Halder @ Bapi and 100 grams of gold to Rijul Islam Khandkar. The co-accused Ziyaul Haque Halder @ Bapi was arrested on 27.10.2025. Recovery of 1717 grams of gold silver mixture, 29 grams of gold ornaments and Rs.26,730/- was effected from him. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner alognwith co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His involvement in another case cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. The co-accused Navnath Tanhaji Misal @ Rotan has already been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that the petition is a habitual offender. The allegations against him are serious in nature. There are chances of his absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by both the parties at considerable length.

7. The petitioner is alleged to have stolen 500 grams of unfurnished gold ornaments from the shop of the complainant. He had come to the shop