Harpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 21.08.2025 Harpreet Singh . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Harpreet Singh 12.07.2024 304 of BNS, 2023 Model Town Ludhiana 2.

Allegations against the petitioner are that on the day of the incident, i.e., 11.07.2024, he allegedly pulled and snatched a gold chain weighing 10 grams, which the complainant was wearing around her neck. Though the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the FIR, during investigation he was arrested, and from his possession, one gold chain and a motorcycle bearing registration No. PB10-BZ-8044 were recovered. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.07.2024. It is also noteworthy that the

- 2 - occurrence allegedly took place on 11.07.2024, the FIR was lodged on 12.07.2024, and subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 15.07.2024. Thus, learned counsel submits that a false case has been planted against the petitioner, and in fact, he has no involvement whatsoever in the present case. Moreover, he is not involved in any other similar activity. 4.

Learned counsel further submits that the complainant, namely Heena Dhaliwal, has already been examined by the prosecution, and for completing the examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses (total 11 in number), considerable time shall be consumed by the trial Court. The petitioner has already suffered incarceration for about 01 year and 01 month, and any further detention in custody would serve no meaningful purpose for the prosecution. Keeping in view the young age of the petitioner, it is urged that he deserves one opportunity to reform, rehabilitate himself in society, and join the normal course of life.

In view of above, learned counsel prays for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

5.

On the other hand, though learned State counsel opposed the prayer of bail, but he not dispute the factual position addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, as recorded here-above. 6.

Be that as it may, I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides. Without making any observations regarding the quality or standard of evidence upon which the prosecution seeks to build up its case, and noticing the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for more than one year and one month. Additionally, it is also observed that culmination of trial shall take considerable time, as only one witnesses, i.e., complainant has been examined out of total 11 prosecution witnesses.

- 3 - Therefore, in the given circumstances, I find it appropriate to entertain the petitioner's plea for regular bail, as it pertains to the fundamental question of an individual's liberty.

7.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

8.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

9.

The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.

10.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 21, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No