Balbir Singh Alias Bagga Vs State of Punjab

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.274 dated 16.07.2022 , registered under Sections 394, 455, 342, 506 and 323 IPC and Sections 24 and 27/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot.

¶17

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 3 years and almost 2 months. He alleges false implication. He was not named in the FIR, however, it is the supplementary statement of the complainant, wherein allegations were levelled against him and others. He hails from District Ludhiana and has no concern with the co-accused, who belong to District Faridkot. It is a magisterial trial. Co-accused have been granted default bail by the trial Court vide orders dated 17.10.2022 and 18.10.2022, Annexure P-3. Charges were framed on 06.12.2022 and complainant, 1 material witness i.e. her husband, besides, 2 more have been examined, however, 10 more are remaining. The petitioner is involved in 1 more case, wherein he is on bail. R eliance is placed on the judgment passed

¶18

MOHIT 2025.09.17 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-6898-2025 (O&M) 2

¶20

by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382 .

¶21

The custody certificate dated 16.09.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 3 years, 1 month and 25 days.

¶22

4 . Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner in the supplementary statement of the complainant, of having participated in commission of the offence and Rs.1,14,000/- has been recovered from him. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case, co-accused having been granted default bail and the petitioner being on bail in other case.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

6 . Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.”

¶25

7 . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 3 years, 1 month and 25 days; on bail in other case; co-accused have been granted default bail; charges stand framed on 06.12.2022, complainant and her husband have been examined however, 10 prosecution witnesses remain, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further

¶26

MOHIT 2025.09.17 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-6898-2025 (O&M) 3

¶28

incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

¶29

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

¶30

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶31

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶32

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

¶33

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

¶34

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶35

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

¶36

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

¶37

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶38

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

¶39

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

¶40

MOHIT 2025.09.17 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CRM-M-6898-2025 (O&M) 4

¶42

10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations .

¶43

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶44

17.09.2025 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

¶45

MOHIT 2025.09.17 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Balbir Singh Alias Bagga v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh Alias Bagga 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

Jhujar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jaskaran Singh Vs Si Mukhtiar Singh & Ors.

Sumer Chand Vs State of Haryana and Another

Rajesh Kumar Vs Balbir Singh

Jagjit Singh Vs Buta Singh

Shyam Lal Vs Vinod Kumar and Ors.