← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/32460/2025allowed

Ramandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

2025-09-04Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary3 pages

 CRM-M-32460-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 110+210 CRM-M-32460-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.09.2025 Ramandeep Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner   

    ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.18 dated 07.04.2025, registered under Sections 318(4)(A), 61(2) of BNS and Sections 7 and 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Sector Vigilance Bureau Range, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 4 months. He alleges false implication. He had taken the charge as ATO, a month prior to the lodging of FIR on deputation from PUNSUP as stated in para 10 of the petition. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Manish Kumar (Data Entry Operator) and Jatinder Kumar (Junior Assistant), who in the same breath had also named one Ravinder Kumar Bansal, DTO, who has been granted anticipatory bail by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 28.05.2025, Annexure P-4. Challan stands framed on 04.06.2025, however, charges have not been framed. In all there are 31 prosecution witnesses.

 CRM-M-32460-2025 (O&M) 2 The petitioner is not involved in any other case. 3.

The custody certificate dated 03.09.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 4 months and 10 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner had actively participated in the complaint registered against him. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case, co-accused having been granted anticipatory bail and the petitioner being not involved in any other case.

5.

Heard.

6.

                       !"# $

 

  #% %  #

  " "&'"'( % 

  %  #   )!    * *           % %  

 

 '!   +   7.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific

 CRM-M-32460-2025 (O&M) 3 order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

8.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

9.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 04.09.2025 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No