The court may exercise its discretion to grant bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the period of incarceration, lack of previous criminal involvement, parity with co-accused, and inordinate delays in trial proceedings.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 01 dated 01.01.2026 U/s 111(2) OF BNS of 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act, Section 310 (5) (6) of BNS of 2023 added later on, ( Erstwhile Section 111 (2) newly added Section in BNS 2023 and section 400 and 402 of IPC) registered at Police Station Kotwali Patiala, District Patiala.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, was apprehended on the basis of secret information, and a huge quantity of firearms was recovered from his co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as he was not present at the alleged place of recovery. It is submitted that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and there is no incriminating material which would connect him with the commission of alleged offence. He submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 04 months and 25 days and is not involved in any other case. Moreover, co-accused Husanpreet Singh has already been granted bail by this Court in CRM-M-19908-2026 on 21.04.2026 (Annexure P-4). He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time because none out of 10 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 04 months and 25 days. He, upon instructions, submits that none out of 10 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 04 months and 25 days, he is not involved in any other case, co-accused has already been granted bail and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as none out of 10 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.

8. 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 bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.