IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.03.2026 MAKHAN SINGH ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Ms. Harpreet Maini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition for bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.193 dated 13.08.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of Jatinder Kumar Chawla, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. It was stated by the complainant that he was running a Computer Centre in the name of ‘Kelsey Computer Center’.

According to complainant on 16.07.2025 at about 03:52 PM, he received a whatsapp call from mobile No.97793-79126 and the caller identified himself as Neeraj Chaska. It has been alleged by the complainant that caller demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, as ransom, and threatened that if the money was not paid, he would face consequences. It was further stated by the complainant that thereafter also several calls were received from the same mobile number but he did not attended the same, and that one call received on the mobile number of his office was attended by him. The complainant had raised a finger of suspicion towards Mandeep Singh and the Makhan Singh (petitioner herein).

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation the petitioner has been arrested and his disclosure statement has been recorded.

4. Heard.

5. The record has been perused carefully.

6. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration, for a decision: -

i) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

ii) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence is imprisonment up to 07 years;

iii) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period more than six and half months;

iv) that except theft cases, there is no other FIR regarding extortion of money against the petitioner;

v) that there is nothing on record to show that the mobile number used for extortion calls belonged to the petitioner;

vi) that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was responsible for making the above-mentioned calls;

vii) that the investigation in this case is already complete and nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

viii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;

ix) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose;

x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

xi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

7. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another importan