Jaideep Singh v. State Of Punjab

Prayer in the present petition f filed under Section 483 BNSS is for gran nt of regular bail to the petitio oner in case FIR No.51 dated 17.03.2025, , registered at Police Station Gobindgarh Mandi, District Fatehgarh S Sahib, under Sections 109, 132 2, 221 and 3(5) of BNS and Section 25 o of the Arms Act, 1959.

2.

Learned counsel contends th at the petitioner has been in custody for about 11 months. He alleges fal lse implication. The co-accused and the peti itioner also received injuries, as s is reflected in the order dated 18.11.2025, , Annexure P-6, passed in the c ase of Basant Singh @ Rinku, who was gr ranted bail, after being in custody y of 7 months and 27 days. As a matter of fact, no gun-shot injury has been n caused to the police party, as

is mentioned in MLR placed on record in the aforesaid case. Charges have been framed on 03.09.2025, however none out of 23 PWs has been examined. He is involved in 1 more case wherein he is on bail, while the aforesaid co-accused was in 2. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. 3.

The custody certificate dated 08.03.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 10 months and 24 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and recovery of 2 pistols, Rs.50,000/- and a bike without number plate was effected from him. However, she is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; the petitioner being on bail in another case and the coaccused having been enlarged on bail. 5.

Heard.

6.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc."

prosecution evidence has to commence; in all there are 23 PWs;

8.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

9.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 10.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.