IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

208 CRM-M-14289-2026 (O&M)

Decided on: 01.05.2026 BEERU RAM …...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Vikran Kumar Vij, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 258 dated 27.09.2019 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 379, 420, 473 IPC (Section 411 of IPC added subsequently) registered at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was granted regular bail vide order dated 10.10.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura. However, during trial proceedings, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on 04.11.2024 and subsequently, he was the trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested again on

19.12.2025 and has been in judicial custody since then. He further contended that the trial will take sufficient time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. It is also contended that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition(s) as imposed by the Court.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On advance notice, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposed the concession of regular bail to the petitioner by way of filing of custody certificate dated 30.04.2026 and contended that the petitioner may flee from the process of justice, if released on bail again. It is further contended that the petitioner is involved in one more case i.e. FIR No.37 dated 15.02.2014 under Sections 457, 380 IPC which is under trial, however he is on bail in that case.

6. Heard.

7. As per the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner was granted bail on merits in this case but due to his non- appearance, the concession of bail so granted was cancelled and he was has been in custody since then; trial will take sufficient time to conclude; no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period; this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner as bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment as culpability of the accused will be decided at the final stage by the Trial Court after adducing of evidence by both sides.

7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned subject to imposing such conditions so as to secure the presence of the petitioner during the trial.

8. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an opinion on the merits of the main case.

(SUBHAS MEHLA)

JUDGE

01.05.2026 Sonia Puri