IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.238 CRM-M-10301-2026 Decided on : 07.05.2026 Vinod Kumar @ Kaka ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Mitul Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, Punjab.

***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.75 dated 31.05.2025, registered under Sections 109 (1), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner alongwith co-accused armed with pistol, iron rod, iron kirpan etc. caused injuries on the person of complainant Shubham with an intention to kill him.

Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and he has no concern with the said offence. Learned counsel contends that no firearm injury is recorded on the person of complainant. If the prosecution case is taken to be true, even then no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. No recovery is to be effected from him. The petitioner is in custody since 13.09.2025. The investigation in this case is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been framed and out of 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. He further submits that trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report as well as the custody certificate, which are taken on record. She has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. She has further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in one more case meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 07 months and 21 days; the investigation in this case is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been framed; out of 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Reliance in this regard is placed upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

7. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced