Rajan Kumar v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :19.01.2026 Rajan Kumar ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Gaurav Partap S. Pathania, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
***** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.
Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.36, dated 12.03.2025, under Sections 304, 221, 132 of BNS (Section 111 BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Division No.1, District Pathankot. 2.
Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that the FIR in question was registered on the statement of the complainants, Narinder Walia Pathankot (Excise Officer), Anil Kumar and Parminder Gupta, (Excise Inspectors). It was alleged that there were eight partners in this group including the complainants. Excise Officer and Tax Collector and Excise Police Staff were assigned duty by Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Gurdaspur to monitor the contract from 10.03.2025 to 31.03.2025 so that the revenue can be deposited in the government treasury. It was further alleged that on 11.03.2025 at about 10:10 PM, it was informed that one Rajan Kumar son of Ashok Kumar, caused obstruction in their duty
and committed snatching on the account of seven wine shops and in this regard, they were brought to PS Division No.1 Pathankot. Thus, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2025. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Pathankot, praying for the grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Sessions Judge, Pathankot, declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 04.04.2025. However, it is apposite to mention here that the petitioner is on interim bail, granted by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2025.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are totally fabricated. He has submitted that quashing petition bearing CRM-M22013-2025 has already been filed and this Court had already stayed the filing of the challan without prior permission of this Court vide order dated 28.04.2025. He has submitted that the petitioner was granted the concession of interim bail by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2025 and he has not misused the concession of the same. He, thus, prays that the interim bail granted to the petitioner deserves to be made absolute. 4.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner regarding the offence having been committed. However, he has submitted that there is
no complaint or petition against the petitioner regarding the misuse of the concession of the interim bail granted to him. 5.
On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that this Court had granted the interim bail to the petitioner vide order dated 02.05.2025. The petitioner has filed the petition for quashing of FIR and this Court vide order dated 28.04.2025 had stayed the filing of the challan. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner has misused the concession of interim bail granted to him. 6.
In view of the above, this Court finds that there being no adverse record concluding that the petitioner has misused the concession of interim bail, thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 02.05.2025 is made absolute to his already furnished surety/bail bonds before the trial Court and the same shall be treated as alive till the final disposal of the trial. The petitioner is directed to keep on appearing before the trial Court as and when required to do so and also to comply with the direction of the trial Court given by it during the pendency of the trial. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 19.01.2026 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) rittu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No