XXXXXXX vs State Of Punjab

The present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), has been filed seeking the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 141 dated 12.09.2025, initially registered under Sections 48, 111, 109, 61(2), 324(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 120-B, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar (Rural). During the course of investigation, offences under Sections 103, 308(4), 351(3), 238, 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 302, 387, 506, 201, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) were added, whereas the offence under Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) was deleted.

As per the prosecution, the present FIR was registered on the statement of Major Singh, brother of the injured Kulwinder Singh. It is alleged that Kulwinder Singh, who was running a private hospital and also working as a commission agent, had been receiving extortion calls since May, 2025 from one Swarn Singh @ Jeevan Fauji, who demanded ₹50 lakhs and threatened him with dire consequences. It is further alleged that an earlier attempt was also made on 11.07.2025, when two unidentified assailants allegedly opened fire at Kulwinder Singh outside his hospital, pursuant to which a separate FIR had already been registered. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 12.09.2025, at about 12:10 p.m., three unidentified youths arrived at Bhangu Hospital on a motorcycle, out of whom two entered the hospital on the pretext of purchasing medicines and opened fire at Kulwinder Singh with an intention to kill him, causing firearm injuries. The assailants fled from the spot after the occurrence. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, present FIR came to be registered against Swarn Singh @ Jeevan Fauji and three unknown assailants under the relevant provisions of the BNS, 2023 and the Arms Act. Subsequently, Kulwinder Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident on 05.10.2025, whereupon the offence under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 302 IPC), along with other allied offences, was added. During the course of investigation, on the basis of secret information, the present petitioner was arrested on 17.09.2025 and nominated as one of the assailants. Upon completion of the investigation, the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is not named in the FIR. It is contended that the occurrence, as narrated in the FIR, attributes the commission of the offence to three unidentified assailants who had covered their faces and had arrived on an unnumbered motorcycle. Learned counsel submits that there was neither any description of the assailants nor any identifying feature of the motorcycle mentioned in the earliest version, and, therefore, the subsequent implication of the petitioner solely on the basis of alleged secret information is wholly improbable and legally unsustainable. It is further submitted that no test identification parade was ever conducted to establish the identity of the petitioner as one of the alleged assailants.

Learned counsel further argues that no recovery of any weapon, incriminating article or other material has been effected from the petitioner and there is no direct evidence connecting him with the commission of the alleged offence. It is contended that the petitioner, who is a juvenile by date of birth and is pursuing the present petition through his mother, has remained in judicial custody since 17.09.2025. The investigation stands concluded, the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court, charges were framed on 05.05.2026, and despite there being 29 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined till date, indicating that the trial is likely to consume considerable time.

Learned counsel further submits that similarly situated co-accused Karamjit Singh @Karanjeet Singh @ Vansh has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court in CRM-M-32681-2026 vide order dated 25.06.2026. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, has never been declared a proclaimed offender and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is also pointed out that similarly situated co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail.

Notice of motion.

Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that the petitioner is involved in a grave and heinous offence involving a pre-planned attack on the victim pursuant to an extortion conspiracy. It is contended that during the course of investigation, the petitioner was nominated on the basis of credible secret information and sufficient incriminating material has been collected connecting him with the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that the victim ultimately succumbed to the firearm injuries sustained in the occurrence, whereupon the offence under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 302 IPC) and other allied offences were added.

Be that as it may, considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioner since 17.09.2025, the fact that the investigation stands concluded, the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court and charges have been framed on 05.05.2026, the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. It is further noticed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and came to be implicated during the course of investigation after his arrest on the basis of secret information. The correctness of the prosecution version and the evidentiary value of the material relied upon to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence are matters which shall be examined during the course of trial. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner claims to be a juvenile on the date of the alleged occurrence and is prosecuting the present petition through his mother, which is also a relevant circumstance at this stage. Role attributed to the petitioner is that he was given a stolen motor-cycle to co-accused which was used by the co-accused in reccee of place of occurrence prior to actual commission of offence. There is no specific attribution against the petitioner. Furthermore, out of the 29 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, not even a single witness has been examined till date, indicating that the trial is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. It is also not disputed that similarly situated co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court and no distinguishing feature has been pointed out by the learned State counsel so as to deny the petitioner the benefit of parity. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose.

Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-