IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kulwinder Singh alias Chhotu ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Date of Decision: February 16, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 16, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Mohinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.365 dated 18.12.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 379-B, 34 and 411 of the IPC, 1860, at Police Station Tripuri, Patiala.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, namely, Manjit Kaur stated that on 13.12.2022, her son, Khushpreet Singh, left home at approximately 7:30 A.M. with his e-rickshaw as part of his usual daily routine. However, he did not return home thereafter. The complainant expressed suspicion that her son may have been illegally detained by unknown person(s).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 16.01.2023. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that the FIR in question was registered on 18.12.2022, wherein, the petitioner was not named, but upon a supplementary statement made by the FIR- complainant, namely, Manjit Kaur on 15.01.2023, the petitioner was arrested. Learned counsel has further argued that the case in is not one of an eye-witness account. Learned counsel has further submitted that prime prosecution witness, namely, FIR-complainant – Manjit Kaur already stands examined. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 03 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 14.02.2026, in the Court today, which are taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 16.01.2023, whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 08.05.2023. Total 28 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which 03 have been examined, whereas, 01 has been given up till date. It is not in dispute before this Court that the prime prosecution witness, namely, FIR-complainant –

Manjit Kaur already stands examined.

At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus:

“18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies i