[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jeewan Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 23 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
107
CRM-M No.70070 of 2025
Date of decision : 23.01.2026
Date of uploading : 23.01.2026
Jeewan Kumar .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. M.S. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant
---
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.10 dated 1.3.2025 under
Sections 140(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 190, 191(3),
127(2) of BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Rawalpindi,
Kapurthala.
1.1 The present shall be read in respect of offence under Section
140(2), 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
'Statement of Salim son of Zakir, resident of village Samspur Kala, police
station Sarsawa, district Saharanpur, state Uttar Pradesh, age about 27
1 of 5
years, phone number 90270-33155, stated that I am a resident of the
above address and we are seven brothers and one sister. My building shop
is in Panipat. My brother Kamal, car number UK 08 AS 8389, brand
Ceretta, color white, went to Punjab Phagwara on 26.02.2025 for work.
On 27-2-2025 at around 11 pm, I received a call from my brother Kamal's
phone number 97194-53979 and my phone number 90270-33155 on
WhatsApp, but some unknown person called and said that this is the
number of your brother Kamal, whom we have kidnapped along with the
car, come and meet us. On which I came to Phagwara to rescue my
brother Kamal and who asked me to meet my brother Kamal by car and
sent me a location for Phagwara. On which I reached the location I did
not find my brother at that place nor did I find his car, so I have been
searching for my brother till now, but I did not find him. On which I have
come to the police station to give information, the kidnapper should be
arrested and my brother should be rescued and strict legal action should
be taken against the accused and justice should be done, I have written a
statement, I heard it is correct, the statement is correct /-Salim Attestation
is sd /-Jagdish Raj SI Police Station Rawalpindi District Kapurthala dated
01.03.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 01.03.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that
investigation qua the FIR in question is already complete and trial is not
progressing and folly thereof cannot be attributed to the petitioner.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the prime role of the petitioner
is that his premises is used as a shelter/house for keeping the abductee.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the FIR in question was
registered on the basis of a misunderstanding and same has been resolved
by way of compromise dated 13.10.2025 with the complainant (copy
whereof has been appended as Annexure P-2 with the instant petition).
Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the
2 of 5
petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned
State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated
22.01.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 01.03.2025 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 17.05.2025.
Total 20 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is not in dispute
before this Court that none has been examined till date. It is thus
indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It would be
apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024;
relevant whereof reads as under:-
"19 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 oppose 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.
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a
convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an
accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be
brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency
as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a
speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating
Article 21 of the Constitution."
6.1 The rival contentions, including the weightage/veracity required
3 of 5
to be attached to the compromise dated 13.10.2025 with the complainant
(copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-2 with the instant
petition) ; shall be gone into 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.
6.2 As per custody certificate dated 22.01.2026 filed by learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 10 months and 18 days & is shown to be involved in one more
FIR/case. 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 an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
4 of 5
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.
(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
23.01.2026
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
