Allowed¶28

Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2025CRM-M/7540/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; Section 483 BNSS; FIR 120/03.12.2024 PS City Nakodar Jalandhar Rural; 308(5) 351(2) 3(5) BNS 2023; Section 25 Arms Act 1959; ransom demand Rs. 20 lakhs; WhatsApp voice messages; Bambiha group; extortion; co-accused Sunil Kumar; custody since 07.12.2024; no criminal antecedents; no recovery; witness intimidation apprehension rejected; personal and surety bonds; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Manisha Batra J.; CRM-M 7540 of 2025; decision 20.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. ¶28

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in respect of FIR No. 120 dated 03.12.2024, Police Station City Nakodar, Jalandhar Rural, involving alleged ransom/extortion voice messages. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned, without any comment on the merits of the case.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no basis for the contention that the petitioner would intimidate witnesses or abscond; he has no criminal antecedents, is in custody since 07.12.2024, and the trial is likely to take time.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail granted under S. 483 BNSS — Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No.7540 of 2025 (Punjab & Haryana HC, Chandigarh, decided 20.05.2025, Manisha Batra, J.) — Petitioner held in custody since 07.12.2024 in FIR No. 120 dated 03.12.2024, PS City Nakodar, Jalandhar Rural (Ss. 308(5), 351(2), 3(5) BNS 2023 and S. 25 Arms Act, 1959), arising out of four WhatsApp voice messages allegedly sent with co-accused Sunil Kumar demanding Rs. 20 lakhs and threatening to kill the complainant doctor while claiming membership of the Bambiha group. Counsel contended false implication, delay in lodging FIR, no recovery, clean antecedents; the AAG stressed grave allegations and risk of witness intimidation or absconding. Finding no criminal antecedents, no basis for intimidation or absconding, and that the trial is likely to take time, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail on personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate, expressly without commenting on the merits of the case.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

221

¶3

CRM-M No.7540 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.05.2025

¶4

Gursewak Singh ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab ... Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶8

Present: Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶10

¶11

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

¶12

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short

¶13

“BNSS”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

¶14

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
120	03.12.2024	City Nakodar, Jalandhar Rural	District 308(5), 351(2) and 3(5)ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) and 25 of Arms Act, 1959

¶15

As per the allegations, on 30.11.2024, the complainant who

¶16

is a doctor by profession and runs a scanning centre at Nakodar, Punjab was present in his scanning centre when he received a call on his cell

¶17

MANJU 2025.05.21 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶18

-2-

¶19

CRM-M No.7540 of 2025

¶20

phone from phone No.7657880093. He did not attend those calls. However soon thereafter, he received four voice messages on his Whatsapp and senders of those messages were asking the complainant to either give a sum of Rs.20 lakhs or they were threatening to kill him by proclaiming that they were members of Bambiha group. The complainant alleged that he listened to those recordings several times and found that the voices were that of petitioner and co-accused Sunil Kumar who had visited him for scanning a few days back and had conversation with him for long time. Being sure that the petitioner and Sunil Kumar had made ransom call to him, he prayed for taking action. The aforementioned FIR was registered on his complaint. Investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested and is in custody since 07.12.2024. Investigation now stands completed.

¶21

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial will take time. There is unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. The prosecution version is improbable and unnatural. No recovery has been effected from him. He has clean antecedents. His further detention would not serve any useful purpose. Accordingly, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶22

Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab that there are grave and serious allegations against the petitioner who in connivance with the co-accused had made call on the phone of the complainant and then had sent four voice messages

¶23

MANJU 2025.05.21 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶24

-3-

¶25

CRM-M No.7540 of 2025

¶26

demanding ransom amount of Rs.20 lakhs from the complainant and has otherwise threatened to kill him. It is argued that there are chances of petitioner’s intimidating the material witnesses or absconding if extended benefit of bail. The trial has to be commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Accordingly, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶27

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

¶28

The petitioner along with the co-accused allegedly sent voice messages from the phone used by the co-accused, to the complainant making ransom calls for extortion of money. He is in custody since 07.12.2024. He does not have any criminal antecedents. The trial is likely to take time. There is no basis for the contention that he will intimidate the witnesses or may abscond. Keeping in view the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶29

(MANISHA BATRA) 20.05.2025 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶30

MANJU 2025.05.21 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gursewak Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chaman Lal Kanda and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rajdeep Singh @ Raja Vs State of Punjab

Chander Sagar Alias Gharonda Vs State of Haryana

Ajay Vs State of Haryana

Baljeet Singh @ Lovi @ Baljit Singh @ Luvi Vs State of Punjab

Rajpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another