Gurlal Singh Alias Lalla v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.03.2026 GURLAL SINGH ALIAS LALLA ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 07 dated 17.01.2021 under Sections 395, 397 of IPC (Section 395 IPC deleted) and 392 IPC added later on and under Sections 25,54,59 of Arms Act registered at Police Station, Sadar Tarn Taran.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant along with his cousin brother Sukhpreet Singh was going to the Golden Temple, Amritsar, to pay obeisance in his white-colour Swift ZDI car. On reaching Saran Resort on the National Highway near village Kad Gill, he stopped the car to urinate at about 02:10 P.M. On the other side of the National Highway, a Swift Dzire car was standing in which five unknown persons were sitting. Two of the said unknown persons came towards him. One of them who was armed with a pistol, fired a shot and snatched the key of his car and drove away the vehicle towards the bridge.

-23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the FIR was registered on 17.01.2021, whereas the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 21.04.2025. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for the grant of regular bail. He further submits that two pistols were recovered from the co-accused namely Daiyan Singh @ Preet Sekhon. It is also submitted that no Test Identification Parade was conducted and the complainant has not identified the present petitioner as being one of the persons who had snatched the vehicle from him. The petitioner is involved in two more cases; however, he is stated to be on bail in those cases.

5.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

6.

After hearing the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact the petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2025; the trial is yet to commence and it will take a considerable time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served for further incarceration of the petitioner. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

-37.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

9.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 10.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 05.03.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No