Allowed¶28

Amrinder Singh Alias Raja v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2025CRM-M/3646/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; Section 483 BNSS second bail petition; FIR No. 102 dt. 12.11.2023 PS Daresi Ludhiana; Sections 379-B, 411, 34 IPC snatching/snatcher; Article 21 delayed trial; prolonged incarceration as bail factor; parity with bailed co-accused; no prosecution witness examined; criminal antecedents; previous bail petition dismissed; personal/surety bonds CJM Duty Magistrate; Amrinder Singh @ Raja v. State of Punjab; Manisha Batra J; Punjab & Haryana High Court; bail allowed 09.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner on regular bail upon furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned; pending application(s), if any, rendered infructuous. ¶28

Amrinder Singh Alias Raja Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether Amrinder Singh @ Raja, in custody since 21.11.2023 in FIR No. 102 dated 12.11.2023 (Sections 379-B, 411 and 34 IPC, PS Daresi, Ludhiana), deserves release on regular bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration, delayed trial with no prosecution witness examined, and parity with co-accused already enlarged on bail, notwithstanding his criminal antecedents and the earlier dismissal of his bail petition.

¶21

Court's answer

Depriving an accused of liberty by imprisonment resulting from a long-delayed trial violates his fundamental right under Article 21, and prolonged custody is an important factor while considering an application for release on bail.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts on record (custody since 21.11.2023, recovery of snatched phones and vehicles at his instance, bail already extended to co-accused, no prosecution witness examined) and on parity, but expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival submissions, a case for the petitioner's release on bail is made out at this stage.

¶28

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.ratio¶28
Since the main petition has been allowed, any pending application is rendered infructuous.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRM-M-3646-2025 (High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, Manisha Batra, J, decided 9 May 2025): Second regular-bail petition under Section 483 BNSS by Amrinder Singh @ Raja, in custody since 21.11.2023 in FIR No. 102 dated 12.11.2023, PS Daresi, Ludhiana, under Sections 379-B, 411 and 34 IPC, arising out of an alleged snatching by six persons on two bikes who, displaying datars, snatched cracker-sale proceeds, phones and wallets from complainant Ashok Thapar and Mayank. His earlier bail petition stood dismissed; the State opposed bail citing criminal antecedents and likelihood of repetition, while counsel pleaded parity with the already-enlarged co-accused, acquittal in five of seven registered cases, absence of any examined witness, and prolonged incarceration. Holding that a delayed trial violating Article 21 and prolonged custody are weighty bail considerations, and on parity, the Court allowed bail without expressing any view on the merits, ordering release on personal/surety bonds to the trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate; pending application(s) rendered infructuous.

¶1

CRM-M-3646-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-3646-2025 Reserved on: 7^th May, 2025 Pronounced on: 9^th May, 2025

¶5

Amrinder Singh @ Raja

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶11

Present: Mr. Viresh Kumar Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

¶15

The instant one is the second petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 102 dated 12.11.2023 registered under Sections 379-B, 411 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Daresi, District Ludhiana.

¶16

As per the prosecution case, on 12.11.2023, the complainant Ashok Thapar was going towards his house along with grandson of his brother-in-law, on an activa vehicle. He was a pillion rider. They were intercepted by six persons riding on two bikes. By showing datars , they extended threats to the complainant and snatched the money which the complainant and Mayank were having as sale proceeds derived by sale of crackers. They also snatched their phones and wallets. After registration of

¶17

Parveen Sharma 2025.05.12 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-3646-2025

¶19

¶20

FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 21.11.2023. Presently, he along with co-accused is facing trial.

¶21

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. The coaccused have been extended benefit of regular bail. On parity, he too deserves to be be extended the same benefit. He has been acquitted in five out of the seven cases as registered against him. Trial will take considerable time to conclude as no witness has been examined so far. It is submitted that the prolonged period of incarceration is also a ground for extending benefit of bail to him. Accordingly, it is urged that he deserves to be released on bail.

¶22

Status report has been filed by respondent-State. It is argued by learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, that there is no substantive change in the circumstances ever since the dismissal of the previous petition for grant of bail as filed by the petitioner. He has criminal antecedents. There are chances of his committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that he does not deserve to be released on bail.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

¶24

The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have committed offence of snatching. The snatched phones and the vehicles used at the time of occurrence was recovered at his instance. He is in custody since 21.11.2023. The co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. No witness of the prosecution has been examined so far. It is well settled that depriving an accused of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of long

¶25

Parveen Sharma 2025.05.12 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-3646-2025

¶27

¶28

delayed trial is in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21. The prolonged period of custody is one of an important factor while considering an application seeking release on bail. In view of the above discussed facts and on parity but without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival submissions and considering the facts and circumstances on record, in the opinion of this Court, a case for release of petitioner on bail is made out at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶29