Saurav Virdi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2025CRM-M/1600/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. ¶¶31

Saurav Virdi Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner Saurav Virdi, prosecuted in FIR No.217 dated 29.10.2024 (Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar) and in custody since 04.11.2024 with investigation complete and none of the 21 cited prosecution witnesses examined, should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶¶25

Court's answer

The trial is likely to take a long time as, out of 21 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined; the petitioner's culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

Keeping the petitioner in further 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.ratio¶¶28
The petitioner Saurav Virdi is ordered to be released on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral single-judge order (Harpreet Singh Brar, J.), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, 28.05.2025, allowing CRM-M-1600-2025 filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for regular bail of Saurav Virdi, behind bars since 04.11.2024 in FIR No.217 dated 29.10.2024 of PS Sadar, Jalandhar, initially under Sections 324(2), 304(2), 317(2), 109, 281 BNS, 2023, later widened by Sections 140(3) (DDR No.19, 31.10.2024), 331(3) & 305 (DDR No.18, 01.11.2024) and 132 & 221 (DDR No.26, 28.12.2024; also ordered added to the head-note and prayer clause on oral request). Allegations: acting on secret information, a police naka at Jamsher targeted a black Tata Harrier without number plate; the driver reversed into ASI Harjit Singh, allegedly tried to run over SI Suresh Kumar and ASI Harjit Singh, fled after a tyre shot, and was caught on Haqiqat Rai Road; an I-phone (disclosed as snatched from Amanpreet Singh on 22.10.2024), an Audi car and a Tata Xenon (PB08-EC-1729) were recovered; the Harrier was disclosed as stolen from Cosmo Tata Motors. With investigation complete, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. presented and none of 21 cited witnesses examined, the Court held further detention without near-term trial prospects violative of Article 21, citing Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 on undertrial conditions, and released the petitioner on bail without commenting on merits.

¶1

211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-1600-2025 Date of decision: 28.05.2025

SAURAV VIRDI

...PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶9

Present: Mr. Nitin Narula, Advocate for Mr. Sumit Dua, Advocate for the p e titioner.

¶10

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Pr a yer in this petition filed under S ection 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of r egular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.217 dated 29.10.2024 registered under Sections 324(2), 304(2), 31 7 (2), 109, 281 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 140(3), 331(3), 305 of BNS, 2023 a d ded later on) at Police Station Sadar, Jalandha r .

¶14

As per prosecution version, on 2 9.10.2024 SI Suresh Kumar along with poli c e party was present at Bus Sto p , Jamsher, where he received a secret information that accused Saurav (petitio n er herein), who is involved in various cases, i s coming towards Jamsher in a Tata Harrier vehicle of black colour without number plate. If a naka is laid at 'T' point near Government Elementary Sc h ool, he can be apprehended. T h ereafter, a naka at the abovesaid place was laid and at about 2:40 P.M, th e above-said vehicle was seen

¶15

MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶16

CRM-M-1600-2025

¶17

¶18

coming. The p o lice party tried to stop it and t h e driver of the above vehicle slowed it down . When ASI Hajit Singh came t owards the vehicle, the driver reversed it and h it the vehicle in ASI Harjit Si n gh. Thereafter, he tried to run the vehicle ove r SI Suresh Kumar and ASI H a rjit Singh with an intention to kill them but t h ey saved themselves. He hit h is vehicle in the government vehicle and the r eafter, sped away the vehicle to w ards Jalandhar Cantt. In order to stop the said v ehicle, SI Suresh Kumar fired a gunshot in the tyre of the said vehicle and its t y re was punctured but its driver fled away from the spot in the vehicle and he also hit the vehicle in vario u s other vehicles on the road. Thereafter, the driver of the above vehicle wa s apprehended on Haqiqat Rai Road and on en q uiry, he disclosed his name as S aurav son of Sukhwinder Lal. From his sear c h, one I-phone was recover e d and he disclosed that the abovesaid I-p h one was snatched by him from Amanpreet Singh on 22.10.2024. Th e reafter, present FIR was regi s tered under Sections 324(2), 304(2), 317(2), 109, 281 BNS. Petitioner was arrested. During investigation, offence under Section 140(3) BNS was add e d in the FIR through DDR No.19 dated 3 1 .10.2024. On 01.11.2024, petitioner suffered a disclosure statement, whe r ein he disclosed that the reco v ered Tata Harrier was stolen from Cosmo T a ta Motors, National Highway . Thereafter, vide DDR No.18 dated 01.11.20 2 4, offences under Section 331( 3 ) and 305 BNS were added in the FIR. Above accused also got recovered on e Audi car and one Pikka make Tata Xenon bea r ing No.PB08-EC-1729.

¶19

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has b een falsely implicated and no offence under Section 109 of BNS, 2023 is m ade out as it is a case of no inj u ry. Further, the case set up by

¶20

MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶21

CRM-M-1600-2025

¶22

¶23

the prosecution is highly improbable. Prior to r egistration of FIR (supra) , the petitioner was involved only in one case and t h at case was not pertaining to the theft of any vehicle. And till date no compl a int has been filed by anybody regarding the t h eft of vehicle against the petit i oner. The investigation of the case is complet e . Moreover, trial of the case ha s not made any progress as out of 21 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined so far. 4. Le a rned State counsel produces t he custody certificate of the petitioner, whic h is taken on record. Per contr a , he opposes the prayer made by learned cou n sel for the petitioner on the ground that FIR (supra) was registered on t h e basis of secret information a nd petitioner had tried to run over the vehicl e over the police party when he was signaled to stop and he is also involved i n one more case. Moreover, th e offences under Sections 132 and 221 of BN S , 2023 have been added vide D D R No.26 dated 28.12.2024. 5. Le a rned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has placed on reco r d the copy of the final report, in which, the aforementioned sections have b e en mentioned. Learned counsel prays for inclusion of offences under Sections 132 and 221 of BNS, 2023 in t h e head-note as well as prayer clause of the pr e sent petition.

¶24

Up o n oral request made by learne d counsel for the petitioner, the offences under S ections 132 and 221 of BNS, 2 023 are ordered to be added in the head-note a s well as in the prayer clause. Re g istry is directed to make the necessary corre c tions.

¶25

Ha v ing heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of th e case, it transpires that the pet i tioner is behind the bars since 04.11.2024. In v estigation is complete. The final report under Section 173

¶26

MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶27

CRM-M-1600-2025 4

¶28

Cr.P.C. was pre s ented before the concerned Co u rt. Trial of the case is likely to take long time a s out of 21 witnesses cited by t he prosecution, none has been examined till d a te. The culpability, if any, wou l d be determined at the time of trial. No usef u l purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitio n er. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the ne a r future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution o f India.

¶29

A t wo Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI”, (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of u n dertrial prisoner in India has ob s erved:

¶30

“6. Jails in India are flooded with u n dertrial prisoners. The statistics pla c ed before us would indicate that m ore than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial p risoners. Of this category of pri s oners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offenc e , being charged with offences pu n ishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illi t erate but also would include wo m en. Thus, there is a culture of off e nce being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it cer t ainly exhibits the mindset, a vest i ge of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwi t hstanding the fact arrest is a dr a conian measure resulting in curt a ilment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, ther e can never be an impression that it i s a police State as both are concep t ually opposite to each other.”

¶31

In v iew of the discussion above, t h e present petition is allowed. Accordingly, w i thout commenting upon the m e rits of the case, the petitioner namely Saurav V irdi is ordered to be released on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on his furnishing bail bonds/sure t y bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶32

MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶33

CRM-M-1600-2025 5

¶34

No t hing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of a n opinion by this Court on m e rits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the m atter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice t h e trial.

¶35

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) May 28, 2025 JUDGE manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

¶36

MANISHA 2025.05.28 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Saurav Virdi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurav Virdi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vineet Alias Vinit Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Iqbal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Pxxxx Alias Pxxxx Vs State of Haryana

Major Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bittu Vs State of Punjab