Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi @ Gurpreet Singh Sandhu v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-15385-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.240 CRM-M-15385-2026 Decided on : 27.05.2026 Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi @ Gurpreet Singh Sandhu ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL *** Present :

Mr. Vivek K.Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, Punjab.

*** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.133, dated 26.08.2025, registered under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station City Patti, District Tarn Taran.

2.

Brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that the petitioner alongwith co-accused furnished fake surety bonds on behalf of coaccused Manpreet Singh in some other FIR before the Court. Hence the present FIR.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that no specific role, allegation or incriminating material has been

CRM-M-15385-2026 2 attributed to the petitioner. He further contends that there is no direct or substantive evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It has also been contended that the petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He further contends that the co-accused Gurlal Singh and Sukhwant Singh have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran vide orders dated 13.02.2026 and 21.02.2026 respectively. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner.

The petitioner is in custody since 26.08.2025. The investigation in this case is complete; challan stands presented but the charges are yet to be framed. He further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report as well as custody certificate which are taken on record. She has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. She has further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in multiple other cases nature meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 04 months and 04 days; the co-accused have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Court of learned

CRM-M-15385-2026 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran; the investigation in this case is complete; challan stands presented; charges are yet to be framed and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6.

Reliance in this regard is placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an exception". 7.

As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:- "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."

CRM-M-15385-2026 4 8.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 27.05.2026 (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ) mamta JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No