Surinder Pal Singh Alias Chhinda v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:30.10.2025 Surinder Pal Singh @ Chhinda ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:

Mr. G.S. Jagpal, 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.74 dated 05.05.2019, registered under Section 379B IPC (offences under Sections 34/411 IPC were added lateron), at Police Station City Samana, District Patiala.

2.

The adumbrated facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 05.05.2019, when ASI Sinder Singh along with other police officials was present at Gandhi Ground Samana, complainant Narinder Kumar had got his statement recorded to the effect that he is a shopkeeper and lives along with his mother. On 03.05.2019, when his mother was returning from the house of his brother, two youths riding on a motorbike asked her to stop and one of them had snatched her gold earrings

-2and fled away. FIR had been registered and investigation proceedings were initiated. During the investigation, the complainant had got recorded his supplementary statement nominating the petitioner as an accused, who had snatched the earrings of her mother. The petitioner was arrested on 04.07.2019. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered motorcycle, which was in the name of the mother of the petitioner. 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 04.07.2019. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. 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. 6.

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 offence of snatching. Recovery has already been effected. The petitioner is in custody since 04.07.2019. Challan has been presented. Only 01 out of 18 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Trial will obviously take considerable time to conclude.

-37.

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.

(iv). The 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) 30.10.2025 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No