Arvinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Prayer in the present peti t ion filed under Section 483 of Bharatiy a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (f o r short- ‘BNSS’), is for gran t of regular b a il to the petitioner, in case F I R No.82 dated 17.02.2026, u n der Section 6 9 of BNS, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District S AS Nagar.

¶16

The contents of the FIR are reproduced below:-

¶17

“Copy of statem e nt, "statement of xxx daughter o f Sh. Om Prakash, resident of Hou s e No.2676, Mauli Jagran Com p lex, Chandigarh, aged about 35 y ears, mobile No.8427908727. St a ted that I am resident of the abov e said address and I do private j o b. I became acquainted with Arvin d er Singh Sekhon son of Baldev Si n gh, resident of Flat No.802, Towe r B-5, Maya Garden City, Ghazipur in May 2023. Thereafter, our mu t ual friendship increased. During our conversation, Arvinder Singh told me that he wants to marry me. Upon which, I believed A r vinder Singh and we got int o a relationship. In October 2023, Arvinder Singh told me that I sh o uld shift to the flat with him, upon which, I shifted to Flat No.802, M aya Garden City, Zirakpur with Ar v inder Singh. Arvinder Singh's mo t her Charanjit Kaur, sister Rimpi S ekho, brother Gurvinder Singh a lso lived in the same flat. When I asked Arvinder Singh to get mar r ied, Arvinder Singh told me that h i s brother Gurvinder Singh's wed d ing is on 24th November 2023. Aft e r Gurvinder Singh's wedding, we w ill

¶18

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-24759-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶20

also get married. Gurvinder S ingh got married in November 2 0 23, even thereafter, I asked Arvin d er Singh to get married many ti m es, but Arvinder Singh did not ge t married. During this time, Arvi n der Singh kept having physical re l ations with me continuously. I a s ked Arvinder Singh to get married again on 09.02.2026. On 13.02.2 0 26, Arvinder Singh told me that th e re is dispute in the family becaus e of the reason of relationship of b oth of us, therefore, we both sh o uld shift to somewhere else. On 1 3 .02.-2026, Arvinder took me from the flat and rented a house in P a nchsheel Enclave, Zirakpur and left after some time, asking me to c ome back. Since thereafter, Arvi n der Singh switched off his phone. In the evening, when I went to F lat No.802, Tower B, Maya Gar d en City, Zirakpur, Arvinder Sin g h's mother spoke to me right and wrong. Upon which, I returned b a ck. Later I came to know that Ar v inder Singh has left me and gon e to Dubai and will not come ba c k. Arvinder Singh has had physical relations with me by promisin g to marry me. Now, he has refuse d to marry me and has left me. Due to which, I was disturbed and dra n k a floor cleaner, thereafter, I w as admitted to CHC Dhakoli for treatment and from Dhakoli H ospital, I was referred to GMC H 32 Chandigarh, where after trea t ment, I was discharged. Appropriate legal action may kindly be ta k en against Arvinder Singh. Sd/- x x xx. Attested by Sd/- xxx”

¶21

Learned counsel for the pe t itioner inter alia submits that the petitione r has been falsely implicated i n the present case on the state m ent made by the complainant. The allegatio n s of establishing physical relations with her o n the false pretext of marriag e , as have been levelled against the petitione r , it is submitted, are patently sweeping and baseless. The t rue factual matrix is that the petitioner and t h e complainant, both being ma t ure and cons e nting adults, were in a long s t anding consensual relationship . In fact, bot h the parties, who were previo u sly divorced from their respec t ive partners, h ad lived together with the fami l y of the petitioner for a period o f 3 years. H o wever, relations between th e two had subsequently bec o me strained, l eading to the registration of th e present FIR against the petitio n er. It is sub m itted that there is no material o n record to establish the allegations of false p romise of marriage against the petitioner, aged 41 years, who has

¶22

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-24759-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶24

remained in actual custody of 21 days. There is no other case regist e red against h i m.

¶25

Per contra, learned State c o unsel has vehemently opposed the submissi o ns made by the learned cou n sel for the petitioner. She, u p on instructio n s from ASI Labh Singh, stat e s that the petitioner was acti v ely involved in the commission of the offen c e. Learned State counsel has f i led custody c ertificate in Court today and t h e same is taken on record. As per custody c ertificate, the petitioner has u n dergone an actual custody o f 21 days.

¶26

Heard the rival submission s made by learned counsel for the

¶27

parties.

¶28

Before proceeding, a gain fu l reference can be made to the observati o ns passed by the Hon'ble Sup r eme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , relevant paras w h ereof reads thus:

¶29

"21. In bail applications, ge n erally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object o f bail is to secure the appearance o f the accused person at his trial by r e asonable amount of bail. The obje c t of bail is neither punitive nor pre v entative. Deprivation of liberty mu s t be considered a punishment, unl e ss it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his t r ial when called upon. The courts o we more than verbal respect to th e principle that punishment begins af ter conviction, and that every man i s deemed to be innocent until duly t r ied and duly found guilty.

¶30

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detentio n in custody pending completion of t rial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity d e mands that some unconvicted per s ons should be held in custody pen d ing trial to secure their attendanc e at the trial but in such cases, " n ecessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite cont r ary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution t hat any person should be punishe d in respect of any matter, upon whi c h, he has not been convicted or th a t in any circumstances, he should b e deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with t h e witnesses if left at liberty, save i n the most extraordinary circumstanc e s."

¶31

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CRM-M-24759-2026 (O&M) -4-

¶33

Trite to say that at the stag e of considering a petition see k ing bail, the Court, though not required t o make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideration t h e nature of the offence, severit y of the punishment and prima facie , the in v olvement of the accused and the material o n record.

¶34

Reverting to the case in ha n d, it is borne from the record t hat trial in th e present FIR is yet to commen c e, and the conclusion thereof is not imminen t . The pace of the proceedings, t h us, indicates that the conclusio n of trial is n o t imminent. The petitioner has already remained in actual cust o dy for a peri o d of 21 days.

¶35

Prima facie it is the case tha t the petitioner and the complain a nt, both mat u re adults, had been in a lon g standing consensual relations h ip. While th e truthfulness or otherwise of t he allegations levelled against the petitione r , and the culpability, if any, wo u ld be tested and determined on the touchsto n e of evidence during the cours e of trial, the parameters gover n ing the gran t of bail necessitate a balanc e d consideration of the nature of accusatio n , the stage of the trial, the a n tecedents of the accused, and the likelihoo d of his absconding or influenci n g the course of justice.

¶36

Presently, no material has b e en placed on record to suggest t hat the petiti o ner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial. Therefore, up o n taking into account all the consider a tions stated herein-before, and without expressing an opinion on the merit s of the case lest it may prej u dice the trial, this Court is of the opinion t h at the continued detention of t h e petitioner, in the backdrop of the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.07 18:05I attest to the accuracy andpace of t h e proceedings and the substan t ial period of incarceration alre a dy integrity of this document

¶37

CRM-M-24759-2026 (O&M) -5-

¶38

undergon e , would not advance the ca u se of justice. The guarantee of personal l iberty under Article 21 of the C o nstitution of India, which incl u des the right to a speedy trial, obliges t h e Court to ensure that pre- t rial incarcera t ion does not assume a p u nitive character. The prolon g ed incarcera t ion, without the prospect of th e trial being concluded in the n ear future, w o uld also run contrary to the se t tled legal principle that ‘bail is the rule and j ail is the exception’, as reaffir m ed by the Hon’ble Supreme C o urt in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC

¶39

22.

¶40

Without commenting anythi n g on the merits of the case, le s t it may prej u dice the trial, the present petit i on is allowed and the petition e r is ordered t o be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/su r ety bonds t o the satisfaction of the co n cerned learned trial Court/ D uty Magistra t e. The petitioner shall also abid e by the following conditions:-

¶41

(i) The petitioner will not t amper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will not p ressurize/intimidate the prosecu t ion witness(s). (iii) The petitioner will app e ar before the trial Court on the d a te fixed, unless personal p resence is exempted. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is a ccused of, or for commission of which he is suspected. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or p r omise to any person acquainted with the facts of the ca s e so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office r or tamper with the eviden c e.

¶42

In case of breach of an y of the above conditions, the prosecuti o n shall be at liberty to move a n application for cancellation of b ail before th i s Court.

¶43

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

CRM-M-24759-2026 (O&M) -6-

¶45

However, nothing stated a b ove shall be construed as a f i nal expressio n of opinion on the merits of t he case and the trial Court w o uld proceed i n dependently of the observatio n s made in the present case w h ich are only f or the purpose of adjudicating t h e present bail petition.

¶46

Pending miscellaneous ap p lication(s), if any, also stands disposed o f.

¶47

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE

¶48

May 07, 2026 SwarnjitS

¶49

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶50

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Arvinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Sonu and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Anuj Vs State of Haryana

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sunali Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ayyaz Vs State of Haryana

Gagandeep Kumar @ Gagan Kumar Vs State of Punjab