Tushar Sahota Alias Tanu v. State Of Punjab And Another




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (119) CRM-M-67708-2025 Date of Decision: 09.04.2026 TUSHAR SAHOTA @ TANU ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:

Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab.

**** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1.

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 14 dated 15.02.2025 under Section 127(6) of BNS (subsequently added Sections 70(1), 123, 351(2), 61(2), 238 of BNS), registered at Police Station Division No.3, Police Commissionerate, District Jalandhar. 2.

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "Statement of Ankit Sharma son of Late Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma, resident of E.F. 257, Mandi Road, Jalandhar. It is stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and is running a shop of sale of Pooja material under the name of Balaji Puja Bhandar on Mandi Road, Jalandhar. My marriage was solemnized with xxxx daughter of Hari Mohan in the year of 2016. One daughter namely xxxx aged about 07 years and one son aged about 21⁄2 years were born from our wedlock. On 12.02.2025 at about 8:55 PM, when I was called by their maid namely xxxx that xxxx be sent to the house, as she has to go, but I told her that xxxx has not come to the shop, the I enquired about xxxx in my relations and with the acquaintance, but she was not found there.

When I reached at the house, then upon checking the Almirah, 1 found that Rs. 3 lacs in cash and gold ornaments worth Rs. 12-13 Lacs were missing. I strongly suspect that xxxx alongwith his children were kidnapped by Sunny alias Buggi, Buggi's sister namely Shelly and their mother Billa alongwith one Tushar and Gautam and they might have confined my wife and my children in an illegal manner at some secret place.

 have been searching on my own till now, but I have not been able to find them. I have come to inform you and appropriate legal action may be taken. My wife and my children may be traced and may be handed over to me. Statement has been got recorded, heard and is correct. Sd/-Ankit Sharma. Sd/- Dalip Singh Asi P.S Division No.13. Commissionerate Jalandhar dated 15.02.2025." 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged 20 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the statement of the complainant. It is submitted that the petitioner, being merely a friend of co-accused Lucky @ Buggi, has no role in the alleged offence. Reliance is placed on photographs and instagram chats between the respondent no.2 and the co-accused Lucky @ Buggi annexed as Annexure P7. It is submitted that the present FIR has been registered after a delay of three days. Moreover, the victim-respondent no.2 being a major, had voluntarily left the house of the complainant due to harassment and thus, no offence of kidnapping or wrongful confinement is made out. The adverse statement are also evidently made under pressure.

Infact, it is contended that even the petitioner was forcibly made to sign a fabricated disclosure statement. It is further submitted that no cogent or reliable evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. Even, respondent No.2-victim has not supported the case of the prosecution in her testimony before the learned trial Court and has been declared hostile. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year 01 month and 18 days.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. She has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01

 year 01 month and 18 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from official concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 05.08.2025 and out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date. She submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. 5.

Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6.





   







!"

#



  

 



  

$

 %




  

    

               

    

  

   

   

       

         

   



  

  

  

   

         

     

   





  





                 

    

     

     

  



  

 

 ! 

   

    

   

 

 

   

 !           

 

 

  

  

 

             

      

  
  
   

   



     

   "    



     



  

   

  



 



  

 

       

  #   

  
& 











 



&&  '

 ( 

)  

 $



*   +





    





& +

 



   



01 year 01 month and 18 days& & ,

 

 $

 

 

 

  

  $

 











 







   



 





 





- 



  



.  /& 0

  

  

 



 

  - 

$

 

&  

  $

1



* 



* 


 









   ,



 









  



 .





$



   

  





  - & +

  -   

  



 $

*

  



.

 



 

 

-







 

      $ 



.  +



 

  2

)

 

3 $ 





 



   



 & +

   $

 



 

  $   

  



.

* 5



!5

#

 

 !

" #

   
$  

 )& 2 



$ 





. 

6

 









 

6

7 







   
78   

.



$

 % 9:

+

 $  $





& 9:

+

 $

1 7 



 $

:& 9:

+

 $ 





*  



*

 & 9:

+



 





$







$

 & 9:

+



    

-

 

   

 6 $









  





 

  $

 ))& 3





 







 



 

 



%
& ) & 3











.



 



*





)(& 

  

9 :

  



 

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE April 09, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No