Jaspreet Singh@Jassi Vs State of Punjab

The present petition is the second petition preferred by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.12 dated 29.02.2024 registered under Sections 384, 386, 387, 506 and 120B of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station SGN Dev Thermal Plant, District Bathinda. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 30.07.2025.

¶14

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by complainant Sandeep Singh @ Sherry on 29.02.2024 alleging that on 18.02.2024, he received a WhatsApp call from an unknown number and the caller while introducing himself as Baljit Mor raised a demand of Rs.15 lakhs and otherwise threatened him with dire consequences. Similar call was received by him on 20.02.2024 and the caller while saying that he was Arsh Dala raised a demand of Rs.15 lakhs. On 27.02.2024 also, a call was received. The caller introduced himself as Baljit Mor and told the complainant that on 29.02.2024, the present MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-8087-2026 (O&M) 2

¶16

petitioner and Bantu Singh will collect money from him and asked him to give the same. After registration of FIR on the basis of the above statement, investigation proceedings were initiated. The present petition was arrested on 01.03.2024. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and that he along with co-accused used to carry 315 bore country made pistol received from the accused Baljit Maur for extending threats to the complainant and for receiving the money. The coaccused were also arrested. Investigation now stands concluded.

¶17

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case only on the allegations that the coaccused Baljit Mor had taken his name. He had no connection with the above-mentioned Baljit Mor. No ransom call had been made by him. There is no call detail record or any other material to connect the petitioner with the co-accused or with the allegations as levelled in the FIR on 27.02.2024. The location of his mobile phone was not even in the same vicinity. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He has clean antecedents. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a ground for him to seek bail afresh. The material witnesses have already been examined. Similarly situated co-accused Bantu Singh has already been granted concession of bail by this Court. On parity, the petitioner too deserves to be given the same benefit. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶18

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-8087-2026 (O&M)

¶20

3

¶21

Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

¶22

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by counsel for both the parties at considerable length.

¶23

The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have extended threats to the complainant for ransom. He has been in continuous custody since 01.03.2024. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences. However, he has been in custody for a period of over 02 years, 04 months and 02 days. Trial will obviously take time to conclude. Similarly situated co-accused has already been granted concession of bail by this Court. It is well-settled law that the Court, while considering an application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind such as whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, likelihood of the offence being repeated, the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened, etc. However, at the same time, the period of incarceration is also a relevant factor to be considered while deciding whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with an offence. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and the bail application can be considered on its own merits

¶24

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-8087-2026 (O&M) 4

¶26

even if it is filed repeatedly. It has also been held that every day spent in custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. This principle is a part of the broader approach emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 , wherein it was observed that the jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather than reformed. Reliance can also be placed upon Manmandal and

¶27

Another v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 110 , wherein bail was granted to the accused who had been incarcerated for a period of almost two to three years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. By observing that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

¶28

On analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:-

¶29

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-8087-2026 (O&M)

¶31

5

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever.

¶33

(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court.

¶34

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of hearing.

¶35

(iv) The petitioner shall provide his address where he would be residing after release and shall not change the same without informing the concerned IO/SHO.

¶36

(v) The petitioner shall upon his release give his mobile phone number to concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on all times.

¶37

(vi) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, furnish details of his cell phone and Aadhar card, and shall not change his mobile number(s) during the pendency of the trial.

¶38