Kapil Kumar v. State Of Punjab

234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.04.2026 KAPIL KUMAR ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present:

Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinderjit Singh Nahar, AAG, Punjab.

**** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (ORAL) 1.

By way of the present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.0213 dated 08.12.2025 registered under Sections 304 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') (Section 317(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot. 2.

Brief facts of the present case are that on 18.11.2025, the petitioner along with co-accused snatched an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the back pocket of the pant of the complainant. Hence, the FIR was registered. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is falsely involved in this case as story of the prosecution is a concocted one; there is an inordinate delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR; the complainant and petitioner are resident of the same locality, therefore, there is no such instance that the petitioner along with co-accused snatched the money from the complainant; if for the sake of arguments, the story of the prosecution is presumed to be true, maximum punishment provided under Section 304 of

BNS is 03 years and the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 04 months; investigation is complete; challan has been filed and trial will take sufficient time to conclude, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. As such, learned counsel prayed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 4.

Learned State counsel placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner and opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that petitioner along with co-accused snatched an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant; after registration of the FIR, an amount of Rs.2,500/- was also recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act. Hence, learned State counsel prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

5.

Heard.

6.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and the fact that there is an inordinate delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR; investigation has been completed; challan has been filed; maximum punishment provided under Section 304 of BNS is 03 years and the petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2025 i.e. for the last more than 04 months and trial will take sufficient time to conclude, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for any further period, as concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment as culpability of accused is to be decided after appreciating evidence adduced by both the parties and it is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is

rule, jail is an exception, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

7.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. (SUBHAS MEHLA) April 17, 2026 JUDGE manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No