Gurjant Singh Vs State of Punjab

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 139 dated 27.5.2025 under Section 74 of BNS, 2023 and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Amargarh, District Malerkotla.

¶15

Brief facts of the instant case are that the instant FIR was registered on a complaint given by the mother of the prosecutrix, alleging that on 26.5.2025, the petitioner followed her daughter while she was coming back from the school and with an ill intention, put his hand on her right shoulder and tried to give her Rs. 100/-. However, when the prosecutrix refused to accept the same, the petitioner being enraged, twisted her right arm and gave fist blows in her stomach.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the GURPREET SINGH 2026.03.05 18:06 I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentpetitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant, who is Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M-49807-2025 -2-

¶18

the mother of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that as per the footage(s) of the CCTVs, installed near the alleged place of occurrence, the petitioner has neither put his hand on the shoulder of the prosecutrix, nor had he given any fist blows to her. Moreover, there is a delay of 11 days in the medical examination of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the material witnesses have been examined. He further submits that the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 09 months and 04 days and there is no other criminal case registered against him.

¶19

Per contra, learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that the prosecutrix is a minor girl aged 11 years, and the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. She has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 09 months and 04 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Narinder Kumar, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 13.8.2025 and out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, 05 have been examined till date. She submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

¶20

Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and prima facie, the involvement of the accused and the

¶22

GURPREET SINGH 2026.03.05 18:06 I attest to the accuracy andmaterial on record. integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CRM-M-49807-2025 -3-

¶24

Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus:

¶25

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶26

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."

¶27

Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record

¶28

that charges came to be framed on 13.8.2025. Yet, only 05 out of 13 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of 09 months and 04 days. It is also not disputed that he has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other case.

¶29

While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled GURPREET SINGH 2026.03.05 18:06 against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

CRM-M-49807-2025 -4-

¶31

determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of justice.

¶32

Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial, particularly when the material witnesses stand examined. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated hereinbefore, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre-trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’, as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22.

¶33

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and to ensure that the interests of justice are adequately safeguarded, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing of adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶34

GURPREET SINGH 2026.03.05 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

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

¶36

CRM-M-49807-2025

¶37

-5-

¶38

trial.

¶39

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

¶40

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶41

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

¶42

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶43

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶44

It is reiterated that the observations made in hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition, and must not be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶45

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶46

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE

¶47

March 05, 2026 Gurpreet Singh

¶48

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

¶49

GURPREET SINGH 2026.03.05 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Gurjant Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurjant 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Singh Alias Vicky Vs State of Haryana

Mohammad Jaid Vs State of Haryana

Murad Ali Alias Masu Vs State of Haryana

Amit Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Gursewak Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Amritpal Kaur Vs State of Punjab