Rakesh Kumar Alias Shera vs State Of Punjab

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rakesh Kumar Alias Shera vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026

           CRM-M-18036--2026 (O&M)                          1




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                           CHANDIGARH
           (224)                                        CRM-M-18036-2026 (O&M)
                                                                                  2026
                                                         Date of decision : 30.04.2026

           RAKESH KUMAR @ SHERA
                                                                                       ...
                                                                                        .. Petitioner

                                                          Versus
           STATE OF PUNJAB

                                                                                      ...Respondent

           CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
           Present:                 Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner

                                    Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab

                                    ***

           MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. No.148 148 dated 25.07.2024 registered under Sections 118(2), 115(2), 351(2), 190, 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS") (Section 238 of BNS added later on) at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar (Rural).

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got recorded by the complainant Sham Lal Sharma alleging therein tthat hat on the night of 03.07.2024, he alongwith his son Rajiv Sharma was going towards his house on a bullet motorbike and when they were passing through Ajnala Bypass Road, a car came me from the opposite direction.

direction Its headlights were on, and the driver directly hit his vehicle with the motorbike driven by his son due to which AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

his is son and he himself had fallen on the road. The present petitioner armed with a datar, accompanied by 04 persons unknown to the complainant alighted from the car.. The petitioner made an exhortation to catch and kill the complainant and his son and then he opened an attack upon the complainant by striking blows with datar. His accomplices also assaulted him by causing injuries with their respective weapons. His cellphone was snatched. His son tried to save him from the clutches of the assailants but he too sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants. On clamour being raised, several passersby including his grandson reached at the spot and then the assailants assailants fled away in the car.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2026. Investigation qua petitioner stands concluded.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he hhas as been falsely implicated in this case. There is a delay of 22 days in lodging of the FIR. In fact, the son of the complainant (Rajiv Sharma) is having an illicit relationship with his wife and is in live-in live in relationship with her. For the purpose of filing ling a petition seeking protection on the basis of their live live-in in relationship, they have manipulated a back-dated back dated occurrence. There is concealment of real facts. The injury allegedly suffered by the complainant at the hands of the petitioner is on non-vital non tal part. The remaining injuries were declared to be simple. His son had also sustained simple injuries. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He is not required for further investigation. Trial and investigation will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that keeping in view the allegations as levelled levelled against the petition, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

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

7. The petitioner alongwith his accomplices is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object thereof, to have assaulted the complainant and his son. Though the allegations make out a prima facie casee for commission of subject offences by the present petitioner, however, he has been in custody since 11.02.2026. Investigation qua him now stands concluded. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. The continued detention of the petitioner is not going to have any fruitful purpose. The well settled proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial trial incarceration should not be replica of post post-conviction conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. In view of the above discussion, 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 petition petitioner er is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magist Magistrate/Duty rate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions :-

:

(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.

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

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

(iv) The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without furnishing informing the trial Court.

(v) The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times.

(vi) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, wit withh the learned trial Court.

AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

8. In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the respondent-State respondent State shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of the bail.

9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

10. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

infr (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 30.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.