[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prabhjit Singh @ Prabh vs State Of Punjab on 22 April, 2026
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
239 CRM-M-20597-2026
Date of Decision: 22.04.2026
PRABHJIT SINGH @ PRABH
... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY.
****
Present: Mr. G.S. Dhot, Mr. G.S. Mehra and
Ms. Anjali, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.324 dated 19.10.2025,
registered under Sections 7 and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2)
of BNS, 2023 and Section 42 and 52-A of Prisons Act at Police Station Islamabad,
District Amritsar.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 5
months and 11 days. He alleges false implication. The petitioner is an inmate in
Central Jail, Amritsar and no recovery from his person has been effected, though
allegedly from a bag lying on his bed, a mobile phone was recovered, but the same
did not belong to him. Co-accused Parlad Singh @ Prehlad Singh, who was the jail
official and accused of taking money from the inmates in lieu of providing banned
items, has already been granted bail by this Court after being in custody for about
six months. The challan stands presented on 18.12.2025. Charges have not yet been
framed. The petitioner is involved in 1 more case. Reliance is placed on the
judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificate dated 21.04.2026, filed by the learned State
counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for the last
05 months 12 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that a mobile
phone was recovered from a bag lying at the bed of the petitioner wherein the two
screen shots of online payments worth Rs.34,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively
were found. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to
stage of the case and co-accused being on bail.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi (Supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis
of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In
other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case
in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing
away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that
the petitioner is in custody for the last 05 months and 12 days; co-accused is on bail,
there are 18 prosecution witnesses, however charges have not yet been framed, the
trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner
would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, the present petition is allowed.
8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during
the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each
and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific
order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of
which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce,
induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer
or tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile
number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not
change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any
reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall
be done only with prior information to the learned trial
Court.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other
condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the
petitioner.
9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioner by this order.
10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein
above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed
as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently
of the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
APRIL 22, 2026. JUDGE
Rajender
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
