[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prabhjot Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 January, 2026
CRM-M-57688-2025 1
248
CRM-M-57688-2025
Date of Decision: 14.01.2026
Prabhjot Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY
Present: Mr. Nikhil Kumar Vashisht, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
***
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner, co-accused in case FIR No.434 dated 30.09.2024
registered against him, u/s 309(4), 3(5), 341(2), 311, 324(2), 238 of BNS, at
Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, has filed the present petition for
grant of bail under Section 483 of BNSS.
2. Relevant facts as emerging from documents on record be noticed
hereinbelow:-
"Sh. Ashok Kumar, son of Late Sh. Vijay Ram Gadawan,
resident of Police Station Dalli, District Shimla (HP), who is taxi
driver by profession, set the criminal law in motion by filing a
complaint pointing therein that on 29.09.2024, he had to pick up a
customer from the Airport (Shimla) in his taxi bearing No.HP-01-A-
8533. After parking the car on the slip road little ahead of the Airport
near Naraingarh checkpost, he slept in the car. At about 2.00/2.30 AM,
he was woken up by a noise and saw three boys in muffled faces
approaching near the park. Boys were armed with sword and knife and
before he could react, they broke the window pane of the driver seat
and snatched the keys from him and sped in the car towards Mohali.
Primarily with these backdrop, he requested the police officials to
1 of 8
catch hold of the miscreants and to get recovered the snatched car and
his mobile phone kept in the car as also initiate appropriate criminal
proceedings against those found involved in the incident. On the basis
of said complaint, FIR was registered and investigation was set into
motion. On 11.10.2024, Investigating Officer received a secret
information that Prabhjot Singh (petitioner), Nitish Kumar and
Akashdeep Sharma @ Akash were seen roaming in Banur in a car
bearing registration No.PB39-K-0088. The informer further intimated
that all the three persons mentioned above had committed several
offences. Relying upon the said information, all the three were arrested
on 12.10.2024. At the instance of co-accused Akashdeep Sharma @
Akash, motorcycle bearing registration No.PB65-N-2287, (make
Splendor), which was used in the commission of offence was recovered
and, was taken into possession. Further inquiries revealed that the
motorcycle was registered in the name of father of the accused
Akashdeep. During interrogation, all three confessed to their
involvement in the commission of offence, as also that they had affixed
false registration number on the Taxi PB39-K-0088 on the snatched
vehicle, which is parked in a parking area of Block-29, Banur.
Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, Toyota car bearing PB39-K-
0088 with its conductor-side mirror broken was taken into possession.
Snatched mobile phone (make Vivo) was also recovered. Both the car
and the mobile phone were taken into possession. Offence under
Section 341(2) of BNS was added. Information received from the
Registering Authority revealed that Toyota Car No.PB39-K-0088 was
registered in the name of complainant. It further came to the notice of
the Investigating Officer that all the three accused had thrown the
weapons used by them. Resultantly, Section 311 of BNS was added. On
culmination of investigation, challan complete in all respect was filed
before the concerned Court."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner, who is
in custody since 12.10.2024 filed an application for grant of bail before learned
Addl. Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar. The same was dismissed vide order dated
23.05.2025. Aggrieved of which, the present petition under Section 483 of
BNSS has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
2 of 8
been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations levelled against him are
false and frivolous. Investigation in the present case is complete, for challan has
been filed but since no prosecution witness has been examined, completion of trial
in the near future is quite remote. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by
this Court in CRM-M-20348-2025 (Annexure P-2) vide which similarly
situated co-accused were granted concession of bail. It is the submission of
learned counsel that on the ground of parity, similar treatment be meted out to
the petitioner.
It has been very fairly conceded by the learned counsel that
petitioner is involved in another case bearing FIR No.69 dated 18.07.2024 u/s
118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 126(1), 351(3), 324(4), 191(3), 190, 238 BNS, 2025
registered at P.S. Banur, District SAS Nagar, in which he is on bail. Based on
these submissions, it has been prayed to take a lenient view in favour of
petitioner by extending him the concession of bail, as his further incarceration
would not serve any useful purpose. Further, as per learned counsel, petitioner
undertakes to abide by all the conditions so imposed by the Court, while
extending the concession of bail to him.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the request for
grant of bail on the ground that the manner in which the incident was
committed by the petitioner and his two other accomplices as also the fact that
recovery of the snatched Taxi Toyota was effected at the instance of all three
of them clearly indicates complicity of the petitioner in the incident. He further
submits that in the wake of questionable past antecedents of the petitioner,
which is of like nature, no lenient view deserves to be taken in his favour, for
if extended the concession of bail, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from
the process of justice by not appearing in the Court, as also overawing the
3 of 8
complainant and related witnesses, who have till date not been examined.
Dismissal of petition has been prayed for.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the documents on record.
7. It is settled principle that grant of Bail is the rule and jail is the
exception. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of
Punjab",((1980) 2 SCC 5) held as under:-
"27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the right
to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact parallel to
the right to anticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting that as long
back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court of Calcutta in Nagendra
v. King-Emperor [AIR 1924 Cal 476, 479, 480 : 25 Cri LJ 732] that the
object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, that
the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail
should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party
will appear to take his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to
be withheld as a punishment. In two other cases which, significantly,
are the 'Meerut Conspiracy cases' observations are to be found
regarding the right to bail which deserve a special mention. In K.N.
Joglekar v. Emperor [AIR 1931 All 504 : 33 Cri LJ 94] it was
observed, while dealing with Section 498 which corresponds to the
present Section 439 of the Code, that it conferred upon the Sessions
Judge or the High Court wide powers to grant bail which were not
handicapped by the restrictions in the preceding Section 497 which
corresponds to the present Section 437. It was observed by the court
that there was no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle
governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 498 and
that the only principle which was established was that the discretion
should be exercised judiciously. In Emperor v. Hutchinson [AIR 1931
All 356, 358 : 32 Cri LJ 1271] it was said that it was very unwise to
make an attempt to lay down any particular rules which will bind the
High Court, having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the
discretion of the court unfettered. According to the High Court, the
variety of cases that may arise from time to time cannot be safely
classified and it is dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases
and to say that in particular classes a bail may be granted but not in
other classes. It was observed that the principle to be deduced from the
various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail
is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys
freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to
properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a presumably
innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every
4 of 8
opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent person
must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence.
28. Coming nearer home, it was observed by Krishna Iyer, J., in
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1978
SCC (Cri) 115] that: (SCC p. 242, para 1)
"... the issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and
burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed
jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial
process. . . . After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is
fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure
established by law. The last four words of Article 21 are the life of
that human right."
29. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) [(1978) 1
SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] it was observed by Goswami, J.,
who spoke for the court, that: (SCC p. 129, para 29)
"29"There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of
granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will
govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or
cancelling bail."
30. In AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE (2d, Volume 8, p.806, para
39), it is stated:
"Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court,
the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts
and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the
detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his
appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment
of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or
bond would effect that end."
It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not
depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the
cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any
one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity
or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail."
In the case of Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki @ Rabin Vs. State of
West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No.4144 of 2024 decided on 04.10.2024, in a case
under Sections 394, 395, 397, 307 read with 120-B of IPC, Hon'ble Supreme
Court granted bail to the accused considering long incarceration undergone by
him of 2 years and 9 months.
In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr., (2024) 9 SCC 813, the Supreme Court while granting
bail to accused for 04 years in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 held as under:-
5 of 8
16. Criminals are not born but made. The human potential in
everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond
redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing
with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and
every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is
responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors
may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or
parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the
manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with
indigence or other privations
17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court
concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental
right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency
should not opposte the plea for bail on the ground that the crime
committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective
of the nature of the crime."
Recently, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Neelkamal Singh
Alias Billa Vs. State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-39765-2024 has held that
although an accused may have past criminal antecedents but nonetheless if the
incarceration period is long, he is entitled for the concession of bail.
"Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic
and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the
accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in "Hussainara Khatoon
and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC
98. Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction
period of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in
view the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable
apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat
to the complainant. As far as the pendency of other cases and
involvement of the petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can
be placed upon the order of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-
6 of 8
2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab"
decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of
granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be
looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation
of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with
reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the
evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict
adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other
cases/convictions in all probability would land the petitioner in a
situation of denial of concession of bail."
8. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel but
without adverting to the merits of the case, considering the fact that petitioner
has been in custody since 12.10.2024, similarly situated co-accused have
already been granted concession of bail by this Court, the Court is of the
opinion that no useful purpose would be served by further detaining him (p)
petitioner in custody as the same would not only be violative of his rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial but
would, thus, also be against the principle of "Bail is a general rule and
incarceration is an exception" as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.
Resultantly, petitioner is granted the concession of bail subject to
his furnishing two bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall abide by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the
trial Court and shall deposit the passport in the trial Court.
(ii) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date
fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.
7 of 8
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.
(viii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial
Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial
and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the
aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned
Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as
deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is made 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.
In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made
herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be
construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
14.01.2026 JUDGE
Parveen kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable :Yes/No
8 of 8
