Shubham Alias Shubham Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Present: M r . Bachanpreet Singh, Advocate f or the petitioner. M s . Akanksha Gupta, AAG, Punja b . M r . Darpan Bansal, Advocate for t h e complainant.

¶10

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶11

CRM-2728-202 6

¶12

T h is application is for placin g on record the statements of complainant a n d victim recorded before the T rial Court which are annexed as Annexure P-7 a nd P-8.

¶13

Fo r the reasons stated in the app l ication, the same is allowed. T he statements of t h e complainant and the victim recorded before the Trial Court are taken on record as Annexure P-7 and P-8 subje c t to all just exceptions.

¶14

MAIN CASE

¶15

1. T h e jurisdiction of this Court und e r Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 h as been invoked f o r grant of regular bail to the pet i tioner in case FIR No.238 date d

¶16

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

-1-

¶18

CRM-M-53347-2025 (O&M)

¶19

17.06.2025 un d er Sections 137(2) and 87 o f BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station City K h arar District S.A.S. Nagar.

¶20

T h e translated version of the FIR i s reproduced below:-

¶21

“Copy of Statement, xxxxxx Wife of Gurjeet Singh S /o Jaswinder Singh R/o Ward No .6 Kurali near Petrol Pump, Po l ice Station City Kurali district SAS Nagar aged around 35 years Mobile no.98771 xxx stated th a t she is residence of abovementio n ed address and she is a housew if e. I xxxxx wife of Gurjeet Singh s/o Jaswinder Singh r/o Ward No.6 Kurali, Distt. SAS Nagar and I w as earlier married Jarnail Sin g h S/o Joginder Singh R/o Vill a ge Bodupur distt. Fatehgarh S a hib in year 2004 and out of that wedlock I have two daughter s elder one is xxxxx aged around 20 years and younger one is xxx x xx who is aged around 17 years. In year 2014, I got divorce fro m Jarnail Singh and after that in the same year I got married to G u rjeet Singh S/o Jaswinder Singh R /o ward No.6 Kurali distt. SAS N agar and out of this wedlock I h a ve one son named Jaspreet Sing h aged around 10 years. My daug h ter xxxxxx used to work at Clo t hes showroom brand Madamme at Amayra City centre, Khanpur, Kharar and on dated 09.02.2025 s he as per her daily routine left t he house at around 9:00 am in the morning and she used to retu r n back by 8:30/8:45 p.m., but on t hat day she did not return and h e r phone was also not available a nd after that we went to Madam m e showroom at Amayra city ce n tre Khanpur, Kharar at around 9:30 p.m. but they stated that y o ur daughter had left the showro o m at around 8:00 p.m. and we d o n't know anything about her. Tha t after that on 10.02.2025 we gave an application to Police station C ity kharar and that was marked t o SI Balwinder Singh and till t o day we know nothing about o ur daughter. That today we c a me to know at our own that o ur daughter has been kept by o ne Shubham who used to wor k at Skechers showroom at Amay r a city centre, Khanpur, Kharar. So, my daughter should be sea r ched and appropriate legal ac t ion should be taken against Shu b ham. I have given my statemen t in presence of my daughter xxxx x and heard it understood it, foun d it to be correct. Sd/- xxxxxxx a ttested by sd/- xxxxx 76966 xx x xx verified by sd/ ASI Dalji t Singh P.S. City Kharar d a ted 17.06.2025..”

¶22

Le a rned counsel for the petiti o ner inter alia submits that t he petitioner, who is 25 years old, was well acq u ainted with the prosecutrix, w ho admittedly wel l over 17 years of age at the ti m e of the alleged occurrence, h as been falsely i m plicated in this case. It is b e ing stated that the victim in he r

¶23

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

-2-

¶25

CRM-M-53347-2025 (O&M)

¶26

statement unde r Section 183 of BNSS and in h e r testimony before the Trial Co u rt, has not suppor t ed the prosecution case. Even t he complainant has turned hos t ile before the lear n ed Trial Court. In support of his contentions, he has placed on record the copi e s of the statements of complain a nt and the victim as Annexures P- 7 and P-8 resp e ctively. He further submits th a t the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 08 months & 18 days an d there is no other criminal c a se registered agai n st him.

¶27

Pe r contra, learned State coun s el has vehemently opposed t he submissions m a de by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She states that t he petitioner was a ctively involved in the commi s sion of the offence. She has filed custody certific a te in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per cust o dy certificate, the p etitioner has undergone an ac t ual custody of 08 months and 18 days. The lear n ed State counsel, on instructio n s from HC Lakhwinderpal Sin g h, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 17.11.2025 and out of total 17 prosec u tion witnesses, 02 have been e x amined till date. She submits t h at in view of the serious allegations against the p etitioner, he is not entitled to t he concession of r e gular bail.

¶28

H e ard the rival submissions made b y learned counsel for the parties. 6. Before proceeding, a gainful r eference can be made to t he observations p a ssed by the Hon'ble Supreme C ourt in Sanjay Chandra v. CB I, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , relevant paras whereof reads t hus:

¶29

"2 1 . In bail applications, genera l ly, it has been laid down from the ea r liest times that the object of b a il is to secure the appearanc e of th e accused person at his trial b y reasonable amount of bail. T he ob j ect of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of

¶30

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

-3-

¶32

CRM-M-53347-2025 (O&M)

¶33

li b erty must be considered a pu n ishment, unless it is required to en s ure that an accused person wi l l stand his trial when called up o n. T he courts owe more than ver b al respect to the principle t h at pu nishment begins after convictio n , and that every man is deeme d to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶34

22 . From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in cu s tody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great ha rdship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un convicted persons should be h eld in custody pending trial to se c ure their attendance at the tri a l but in such cases, "necessity " is th e operative test. In this country , it would be quite contrary to the co n cept of personal liberty ensh r ined in the Constitution that a ny pe r son should be punished in res p ect of any matter, upon which, he ha s not been convicted or that i n any circumstances, he should be de p rived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper w ith th e witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordin a ry ci r cumstances."

¶35

7. Tr i te to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking bail, t he Court, though n ot required to make a roving i n quiry into the evidence, must t a ke into consideration the nature of the offence, se v erity of the punishment and pri m a facie , the invol v ement of the accused and the m aterial on record. 8. In cases similar to the present one, factors which warrant consideration o f the Court also include, but are not limited to the age of t he prosecutrix an d its difference from the age of the petitioner, so as to a lso determine the e lement of perversion; and the a rguments raised, particularly w ith respect to the c o ntents of the statements made b y the prosecutrix.

¶36

9. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record t h at charges came to be framed on 17.11.2025 . Yet, only 02 out of 17 ci t ed

¶37

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

-4-

¶39

CRM-M-53347-2025 (O&M)

¶40

prosecution wi t nesses have been examined. T he pace of the proceedings, t h us, indicates that t h e conclusion of trial is not im m inent. The petitioner has alre a dy remained in ac t ual custody for a period of 08 m onths and 18 days. It is also n ot disputed that h e has no criminal antecedents an d is not involved in any other ca s e.

¶41

10. W h ile the truthfulness or otherwis e of the allegations levelled aga i nst the petitioner, a nd the culpability, if any, wou l d be tested and determined on t he touchstone of e vidence during the course of t r ial, the parameters governing t he grant of bail n e cessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, t he stage of the t r ial, the antecedents of the a c cused, and the likelihood of his absconding or i n fluencing the course of justice.

¶42

11. Pr e sently, no material has been p l aced on record to suggest that t he petitioner pose s a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduc t of the trial. More o ver, it is noted that the mater i al witnesses during the course of their examinati o n before the trial Court, did n o t support the prosecution vers i on and have been d eclared hostile. While it is sett l ed that the probative value of s u ch testimony is a m atter for appreciation at the sta g e of final adjudication of the c a se, yet, even whil e refraining from entering into a ny conclusive evaluation ther e of, this factum can n ot be completely overlooked. T herefore, upon taking into acco u nt all the consid e rations stated hereinbefore, an d without expressing an opinion on the merits of t h e case lest it may prejudice th e trial, this Court is of the opin i on that the contin u ed detention of the petitioner, i n the backdrop of the pace of t he proceedings an d the substantial period of incar c eration already undergone, wo u ld not advance th e cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Cons t itution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, obli g es

¶43

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

-5-

¶45

CRM-M-53347-2025 (O&M)

¶46

the Court to e nsure that pre-trial incarcera t ion does not assume a puniti ve character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial be i ng concluded in the near future, would also run c o ntrary to the settled legal princi p le that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exceptio n ’, as reaffirmed by the Hon’ b le Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (201 8) 3 SCC 22 .

¶47

12. W i thout commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it m ay prejudice the tr i al, the present petition is allo w ed and the petitioner is ordere d to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to t he satisfaction of t he concerned learned trial Co u rt/Duty Magistrate. The petitio n er shall also abide by the following conditions:-

¶48

(i) The petitioner will not ta m per with the evidence during the trial.

¶49

(ii) The petitioner will not pr e ssurize/intimidate the prosecut i on witness(s).

¶50

(iii) The petitioner will appear b efore the trial Court on the d ate fixed, unless personal presen c e is exempted.

¶51

(iv) The petitioner shall not c o mmit an offence similar to the offence of which he is a c cused of, or for commission of which he is suspected.

¶52

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make a ny inducement, threat or pr o mise to any person acquai n ted with the facts of the ca s e so as to dissuade him fr o m disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶53

13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecut i on shall be at liber t y to move an application for ca n cellation of bail before this Co u rt.

¶54

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶55

-6-

¶56

CRM-M-53347-2025 (O&M)

¶57

14. H o wever, nothing stated above shall be construed as a fi n al expression of o p inion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proc e ed independently o f the observations made in the p resent case which are only for t he purpose of adjudicating the present bail petitio n .

¶58

Pe n ding miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed o f.

¶59

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE 10.03.2026 SwarnjitS W h ether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No W h ether reportable : Yes / No

¶60

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.10 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶61

-7-

Shubham Alias Shubham Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Alias Shubham Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Roop Chand Vs State of Haryana

Syed Danish Qadri Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajan Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kamaljit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gaurav Dalal Vs State of Haryana and Another

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others