##PAGE1##

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS,

2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0154 dated 17.06.2025 under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 (Section 238 BNS 2023 added later on) (Earlier section 419, 420, 467, 465, 471, 120-B and 201 of IPC, 1860)

registered at Police Station City-I Malerkotla, District Malerkotla.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for about 9½ months. He alleges false implication. As per the allegations, he has demarcated the land and attested as witness, however, co-accused Manpreet Kaur, who allegedly impersonated the original

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.27 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

owner, has since been granted bail by this Court, vide Annexure P-3, after being in custody of 8 months and 1 day. The offences are triable by the Magistrate. Charges have been framed on 24.09.2025 and none, out of 16 PWs, has been examined. He is involved in 2 other cases, in 1 of which he is on bail. 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 27.03.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind

bars for 9 months and 8 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having connived with co-accused and cheated the complainant. However, she is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; the petitioner

being on bail in 1 case and the co-accused having been released on bail.

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.”

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.27 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 9 months and 8 days; on bail in 1 case; co-accused is on bail; it is a case of magisterial trial; charges were framed on 24.09.2025 and out of 16 PWs, none has been examined; 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 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 with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for