STATE OF PUNJAB v. Mr. P.K.Budhera and Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocates
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 483
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 148, 149, 307, 506
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 25, 27
Key paragraphs
- Para 1212. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Judgment
Operative part
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.K.Budhera and Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocates for the petitioner. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) CRM-21947-2026 This is an application for placing on record copy of Orders passed by the learned trial Court as Annexures P-9 to P-11. Application is allowed. Annexures P-9 to P-11 are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place. Main case
The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (439 Cr.P.C.) in FIR No.163 dated
08.10.2023, under Sections 307, 506, 148, 149 IPC [corresponding Sections 109, 351(2)/(3), 191(3), 190 BNS], Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, registered CRM-M-18945-2026 (O&M) 2 at Police Station Model Town, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana.
The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the co-accused had attacked the complainant Mudit Sood along with his companion. The petitioner has been attributed firearm injury. It is further alleged that petitioner had gone abroad and was arrested upon his return to India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The injured have been discharged from the hospital within a period of one week of the incident. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 03 days. He, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.
Notice of motion. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State and Mr. Ashish Naik, Advocate appears on behalf of the complainant and have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 03 days and is involved in four more cases.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 03 days; the conclusion of trial is likely to take time and continuous detention of the petitioner would CRM-M-18945-2026 (O&M) 3 not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. Moreover, ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’.
Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
It is clarified that while on bail so granted through the instant order, if the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
08.07.2026 Janki (H.S.GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 148, 149, 307, 506; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 25, 27.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 08 Jul 2026. The bench was H S GREWAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.