Mandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (205) Date of Decision : June 26, 2026 Mandeep Singh .. Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another .. Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:

Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. (joined through VC).

Mr. Vikas Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) CRM-25613-2026 Present application has been filed for exemption from filing certified copies of the Annexures.

As prayed for, the application is allowed.

CRM-M-34377-2026 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier 439 of Cr.P.C) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.31 dated 14.07.2025 registered under Sections 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act at Police Station Women Cell, District SAS Nagar. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 07.08.2025 and the investigation with regard to said FIR was completed and consequently a challan was submitted. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has already been examined and out of the 13 prosecution witnesses, 08 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as of now, the allegations alleged have been supported by the complainant only and not by any other witness, who were the official witnesses only.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even PW-8 Surmukh Singh did not support the allegation alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the trial has already commenced, there is no justifiable reason to keep the petitioner behind the bars especially when, the complainant was in a live-in relationship with the petitioner which relationship turned sour later on. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner be granted the benefit of regular bail.

5.

Notice of motion.

6.

Mr. Vikas Arora, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. 7.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that out of 13 prosecution witnesses, 08 prosecution witnesses have already been examined including the complainant and the trial is likely to be concluded shortly and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of regular bail may kindly be rejected.

8.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

9.

Once, it has already come on record that the complainant and the accused were living in a live-in relationship and the allegations alleged against petitioner only came into existence thereafter when the said relationship came to an end, the veracity of the said allegations needs to be proved by presenting cogent evidence.

10.

As of now, the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 07 months and 03 days and out of 13 prosecution witnesses, 8 prosecution witnesses have already been examined including the complainant. There is no allegation against the accused that he is at a flight risk so as to evade trial and considering the totality of the circumstances, no useful purpose will be achieved in keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further as learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken before this Court that in case the petitioner is granted the benefit of regular bail, he will not misuse the same and will not influence the trial or the witnesses in any manner. 11.

In view of the above and without commenting upon the merits of the case, present petition is allowed and accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned unless and until required to be kept behind the bars in any other case.

12.

However, it is made clear that anything observed herein shall not be construed to be an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.

June 26, 2026 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No