Vikram Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (217) Date of Decision:-25.09.2025 Vikram Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN ****

Present:

Mr. S.K. Liberhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Japjot Singh, AAG, Punjab.

**** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed inter alia praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 132 dated 27.11.2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 61(2) and 64(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station IT City, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never named in the FIR, however, has been nominated later on, on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Damanpreet Singh that his ID was used in the hotel in which the main accused and the prosecutrix had gone. Apart from that, there is no averment or allegation against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not even aware of his ID being used or misused. 3.

Learned State counsel has also filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record, according to which the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 13 days as on

24.09.2025 and submits that the disclosure statement of the main accused clearly demonstrates that the petitioner had played an active role in abetting the crime with the main accused, as he was also present at the same place and permitted his documents to be misused by the main accused. 4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 5.

In light of the above and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 13 days and has no other case pending against him and the fact that the documents are already in possession of the Authorities, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take a long time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, hence, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of the concession of regular bail.

6.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition stands allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail if not required in any other case on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. The petitioner shall, however, be released on the following conditions: i The petitioner shall declare his ordinary place of residence and the mobile number used by him.

ii The petitioner will not switch off his mobile and in case of any technical glitch, he has to give an alternate number, which will be available in his absence.

iii The petitioner will mark his presence before the SHO concerned, after every 15 days and in case the SHO refuses to mark his presence, he is permitted to make an application before the Illaqa Magistrate, concerned.

iv The petitioner will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court, for which he will submit the copy of his passport also. However, in case the petitioner does not possess a

passport, then he shall file an undertaking to the said effect before being released.

The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions as imposed in addition to Section 483 of BNSS, 2023. 7.

However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and this order shall not be considered as parity qua any other co-accused in any manner whatsoever. 8.

It is further made clear that, in case, the petitioner is found involved in any such activity once again, the State is at liberty to promptly move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail detailing out the circumstances and violation of conditions of bail. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE September 25, 2025 parul Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No