Parminder Singh @ Sidhu v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 10.07.2025

Pronounced on: 28.07.2025 Parminder Singh @ Sidhu

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Davneet Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 06.08.2023 Bilaspur, District 364-A/120-B IPC Yamuna Nagar 1.

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2.

Per paragraph 13 of the bail petition and 28 of status report, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

3.

The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

"3.

That on dated 06.08.2023 complainant of this case namely Gaurav Gupta son of Ram Kumar gave a complaint to the police that his father Ram Kumar runs a Karyana shop and he goes for morning as usual at Hartol road Bilaspur and comes back after one or two hours. Today at about 06.10 am he went for walking who was having mobile No. 90502XXXX and has not returned to home upto 0730 am. Telephonic call came from his above said mobile on my mobile No. 9350115746 that he will come by evening, so we remained peaceful. Now at about 10.30 am telephonic call was received from the above said mobile phone of my father at my sister's mobile No. 9306479338 that somebody has kidnapped him and they are demanding Rs. 50 Lakhs and all gold and in case you inform police then I will be killed. Legal action be taken. Thereafter the instant FIR was lodged."

4.

The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

5.

The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

6.

The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 7.

It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

"27. Role of the petitioner - That with regard to the role of the petitioner, the petitioner was having friendship with co-accused Raj Kumar alias Raju and with a view to earn money, the petitioner and his co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Ram Kumar alias Ramu and in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, on 06.08.2023, the petitioner and his coaccused kidnapped the victim Ram Kumar alias Ramu in Innova Car bearing number HR 58 A 5431 and demanded ransom of Rs.50 Lacs from his release from the family members of the victim."

8.

There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. Per paragraph 09 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 08.08.2023. Per the custody certificate dated 09.07.2025, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 01 year and 11 months. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, petitioner having clean antecedents and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 9.

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

10.

Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest

Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 11.

While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

1.

AADHAR number 2.

Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

3.

Mobile number (If available) 4.

E-Mail id (If available) 12.

This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms. 13.

The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

14.

The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner's behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition. 15.

This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the Special Judge/ Sessions Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.

16.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 17.

A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

18.

Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 28.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.