CRM-M/39325/2026 of GURPREET SINGH ALIAS SONU Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 10 September 2026

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.88 dated 9.5.2026 under Sections 305, 331(4) and 62 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- ‘Statement of Complainant Abhishek Singh, son of Ram Prakash Singh, resident of House No. 286, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, presently residing as a tenant at House No. 14-A, Kaki Pind, opposite HDFC Bank, Jalandhar-Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar, aged about 32 years, phone No. 98763-26968. He stated that he is a resident of the above-mentioned place and has been living in Jalandhar since the year 2020. I work in NCR ATL BOS as an ATM-MSP (Managing Service

Provider). My duties include payment of rent for the places where ATMs are installed and which are under my supervision. An SBI ATM situated in Kishangarh town is under my supervision. On the morning of 02.05.2026, it came to notice that during the intervening night of 01.05.2026 and 02.05.2026, some unknown persons attempted to extract money from the SBI ATM by breaking and damaging it. We tried to identify the said unknown persons through the CCTV cameras installed in the ATM. Till today, we were also trying to trace the said unknown persons on our own. It has now come to our knowledge that this occurrence was committed by Kanwaljit Singh, son of Makhan Singh, resident of Gangarbhana, District Amritsar, presently residing at Shekhupur, District Kapurthala, along with one of his associates. In the commission of this occurrence, the accused persons used a white Indica car. We are producing before you, in a pen drive, the videos and photographs taken from the CCTV cameras installed inside the ATM. Appropriate legal action may kindly be taken against the aforesaid persons. Statement recorded, read over and heard. Understood and found correct. Sd/- Abhishek Singh verified by (Signed) Nishan Singh, ASI, Police Post Kishangarh, Police Station Kartarpur, dated 09.05.2026.’

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 12.5.2026. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been implicated into the FIR in question primarily on account of his antecedents. Learned counsel has further urged that there is 8 days’ delay in registration of the FIR. Learned counsel has further urged that another co-accused namely Harpreet Singh @ Happy has already been afforded the concession of regular bail by the concerned Magisterial Court. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel had filed reply by way of affidavit of Narinder Singh PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Kartarpur, District Jalandhar (Rural) dated 3.9.2026. The same is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 8.9.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 12.5.2026 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was presented on 9.7.2026. Total 12 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none have been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time.

Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the factum of the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, co-accused Harpreet Singh @ Happy having been granted the concession of bail, challan having been presented after culmination of investigation wherein total 12 prosecution witnesses have been cited whereas none have been examined till date; this Court is inclined to afford the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 8.9.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 3 months and 25 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 another FIR(s). Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned

CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE 10.9.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No