Tej Bull v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on:29.10.2025

Date of decision:31.10.2025 Tej Bull ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:

Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.169 dated 15.12.2024, registered under Sections 306, 3(5), 317(2) of the BNS, at Police Station Dugri, District Ludhiana.

2.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant - Amarinder Singh Sandhu alleging that his mother-in-law, Lakhwinder Kaur was residing alone in Sabs Nagar. She had engaged one Suraj R/o Nepal as her cook on 13.12.2024. On 14.12.2024, she along with the said Suraj had gone to Faridkot and returned on the same night. In the morning of next day, the complainant went to her mother-in-law's house and found her to be lying in an unconscious state. Her

-2belongings were lying scattered. Entire house was found to be ransacked. The locker and doors were found to be broken and the cook engaged by her was found to be missing. On his statement, initially a case under Sections 306, 35, 317(2) of the BNS was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated.

3.

As per the further allegations, the complainant recorded his supplementary statement to the effect that the petitioner along with Ram Bahadur, Surinder Bull and Suraj were involved in the occurrence and had committed theft of gold ornaments and cash amount of money from the house of the victim. The petitioner was nominated as an accused. He was arrested on 28.03.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered an amount of Rs.24,000/- out of the robbed amount. Investigation now stands completed. 4.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant which has no basis. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He is in custody since 28.03.2025. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. He has clean antecedents. Co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail.

5.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. There are chances of his absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

-36.

This Court has heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. 7.

The petitioner along with co-accused is alleged to have committed theft at the house of the complainant's mother-in-law. Recovery has already been effected. The petitioner is in custody since 28.03.2025. Challan has been presented. Charged are yet to be framed. Trial will obviously take considerable time to conclude. 8.

Keeping in view the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the extent of two sureties to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned to the following conditions: (i) He shall appear before the concerned Police Station twice on the first Monday of every month and shall appear before the learned trial Court as and when directed.

(ii) He shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court and shall surrender his passport and Aadhaar card before the trial Court.

(iii) He shall provide his permanent as well as latest address where he would be residing after release and shall not change the same without informing the concerned IO/SHO.

-4- (iv). He petitioner shall upon his release give his mobile phone number to concerned IO/SHO, shall keep his mobile phone switched on all times and shall not change his mobile number(s) during the pendency of the trial.

(MANISHA BATRA) 31.10.2025 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No