Udheyraj Singh Grewal v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 10.11.2025 Udheyraj Singh Grewal ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Ms. R.K. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1.

For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 380 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 25, 27, 55, and 59 of the Arms Act, the FIR No.240 dated 07.11.2022 has been lodged in Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the commission of abovementioned offence and he has been arrested. The petitioner is in custody and, therefore, craving for bail. This is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2.

In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 380/511 of IPC, and Section 25 of Arms Act. During abovementioned trial, the petitioner was on bail and on account of his failure

to appear before the learned trial Court on 22.11.2023, his bail was cancelled and the bail bond & surety bond were forfeited to the State. Subsequently, after issuing several processes, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. The order, dated 16.10.2024, passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender, was under challenge before this Court in CRM-M-29716-2025. The abovementioned petition was allowed and the order dated 16.10.2024 had been quashed. 3.

Subsequently, the petitioner surrendered before the learned trial Court and moved an application for bail, but the same has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. The second application moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana also met the same fate on 23.10.2025. Hence, the present petition.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondentState, and waives service. 6.

Heard.

7.

The record has been perused carefully.

8.

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration, for arriving at any decision with regard to present petition for bail: - i) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

ii) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than 25 days;

iii) that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

iv) the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; v) that detention of petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose;

vi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. 9.

If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

10.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on fresh bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and , till the final decision of the trial;

and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE NOVEMBER 10, 2025 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No