SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking the concession of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR No.06 dated 06.01.2026, under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(2), 238 of BNS, 2023 and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals Regulation Act, 2014 registered at Police Station City-1, Malerkotla, District Malerkotla, Punjab (P-1).

2. Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that there is no connecting or corroborative evidence linking the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence, and that the petitioner has not committed any such offence. Accordingly, a prayer is made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

On behalf of the State/Complainant

On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.

Mr. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Advocate for the complainant has filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

They oppose the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in one other FIR also but is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Analysis

From the above discussion, it emerges that the petitioner has already undergone sufficient incarceration, i.e. 02 months and 08 days. In terms of the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the investigation stands completed and the challan has been presented, charges have been framed, and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner. This indicates that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, continued detention of the petitioner for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose.

As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner therein is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would lend the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.

Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

"2. 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 important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic