Sunny Singh Vs State of Punjab

This petition is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.11 dated 08.04.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 310(2), 115(2), 126(2), 190, 311 and 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [Corresponding Sections 395, 323, 341, 149, 397 and 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860], Police Station GRP Sirhind, District Rupnagar.

¶15

The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Kah King’(a foreign national), hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 07.04.2025 he arrived at Anandpur Sahib Railway Station as a tourist and thereafter, proceeded towards Sri Keshgarh Sahib on foot. According to complainant on the way he was waylaid by two persons who were later on joined by several

¶16

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-15014-2026 (O&M)

¶18

2

¶19

other persons and they wrongfully restrained him, brutally assaulted him with stone and when he became unconscious, robbed him of his backpack, wallet, passport and all electronic articles.

¶20

It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

¶21

According to prosecution, during the course of investigation, the wallet belonging to the complainant and the stone which was used for inflicting injury were recovered from the possession of petitioner.

¶22

5. Notice of motion .

¶23

appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

¶24

7. Heard.

¶25

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of one year two months & twenty seven days, and that he is the only breadwinner of his family. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, investigation in this case is already complete and trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for the benefit of bail for the petitioner.

¶26

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-15014-2026 (O&M)

¶28

3

¶29

The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the petitioner has a criminal history as he has already been prosecuted in four other cases. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that the gravity of offence in the present case, wherein a foreign national has been subjected to dacoity, is very serious as it has a negative impact on the image of the Indian society as well as Indian State. The learned State Counsel has also contended that the period of incarceration is not large enough to draw an inference that there is delay in trial. On the instructions of ASI Sugreev Chand it has been contended by learned State Counsel that the wallet of the victim and the stone used for the commission of offence have been recovered from the possession of petitioner.

¶30

10. The record has been perused carefully.

¶31

A perusal of record shows that there are very specific and categorical allegation against the petitioner that he was a member of the group of assailants, which committed a dacoity with a foreign national. Secondly, the involvement of petitioner in the commission of offence is prima facie established, by the Investigating Agency, on the basis of recovery of stolen property belonging to complainant, from the possession of petitioner. Thirdly, the period of incarceration is not large enough to draw an inference that there is delay in trial.

¶32

Taking into consideration the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and abovediscussed factors, it is hereby observed that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present

¶33

VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.07.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CRM-M-15014-2026 (O&M)

¶35

4

¶36

petition being devoid of merits deserves dismissal. Hence, present petition is hereby dismissed , accordingly.

¶37