Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Bahadur Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 November, 2025
CRM-M No.64402 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
245
*****
CRM-M No.64402 of 2025
Date of decision : 20.11.2025
Date of uploading : 20.11.2025
Raj Bahadur Singh .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Ankur Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.97 dated 17.5.2025 under
Sections 308(4), 62, 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 111
of BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Jandiala, District
Amritsar.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that complainant,
namely, Lovepreet Kumar alias Love, son of Surinder Kumar, stated that
he along with his two brothers Vikramjit Kumar and Bhupinder Kumar,
and his father Surinder Kumar, was running a Karyana shop under the
name Surinder Karyana Store. On 10.05.2025, the complainant's brother,
namely, Bhupinder Kumar received a WhatsApp call from a foreign
1 of 5
number +351926593285. The caller identified himself as Billa Mange
Wala and demanded ₹50 lakh, threatening serious consequences if the
ransom was not paid. On 11.05.2025, the complainant (Lovepreet Kumar)
received a WhatsApp call from the same foreign number on his mobile
number 90413-70896. He disconnected the call without giving much
attention. Shortly thereafter, he received two WhatsApp messages
containing threatening audio recordings, warning that any of his family
members could be killed if the demand for ₹50 lakh was not met. These
threats caused fear and distress to the complainant and his family. On
12.05.2025, one Deepak Kumar alias Deepak, resident of Navi Abadi,
Jandiala Guru--who was already known to the complainant--visited the
shop. He claimed to have links with Billa Arjanmaga and stated that he
could settle the matter for ₹20 lakh. Initially, the complainant and his
family agreed, and through Deepak Kumar and another person, namely,
Hardev Singh @ Debu, son of Jaswant Singh, a conversation was
facilitated with the caller identified as Billa Arjanmaga. However, the
complainant later began delaying the matter to avoid making any payment
and eventually reported the matter to the police.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner
is in custody since 07.06.2025. Learned counsel has iterated that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question primarily
on account of his being brother-in-law of co-accused, namely, Balwinder
Singh @ Dony Bal. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner
is a man aged 50 years. Learned counsel has further urged that
2 of 5
investigation into the FIR in question qua the petitioner is complete and
culmination of trial will take time. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in
nature, and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the
regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody
certificate dated 19.11.2025, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through
the available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 07.06.2025, whereinafter,
investigation was carried out and the challan qua the petitioner has been
presented on 08.07.2025. It is not in dispute that total 08 prosecution
witnesses have been cited and none has been examined till date.
Indubitably, culmination of the trial will take its own time. The rival
contentions raised at Bar given rise to debatable issues, which shall be
ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it
appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it
may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to
indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of
justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.1. As per custody certificate dated 19.11.2025 filed by learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 05 months and 11 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the
petitioner is stated to be involved in one more FIR No.117 dated 5.6.2025
3 of 5
under Sections 106, 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station Jandiala,
District Amritsar. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by
itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR
in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR
in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR.
Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and
another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of
the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2)
RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-
2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on
29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal)
191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as undertrial is
not warranted in the factual milieu of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,
in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned
CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
4 of 5
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall
not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of
the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
20.11.2025
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
