This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant & Anr.

This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.79 dated

30.04.2026 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 140(1), 190, 191(1), 304, 351(1) [Section 61(2) added later on] of Bharatiya CRM-M-29747-2026 (O&M) Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 & Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Civil Lines, Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

#2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Gurpal Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. The foundation of above-mentioned FIR was the statement of ‘Gurpal Singh’. The pith and substance of above-mentioned statement was that he was a property dealer by profession, and that on 30.04.2026 he attended Court proceedings in a case. As per complainant, when he entered the Court at 10:00A.M. and was waiting for his turn, he noticed that ‘Prabh Gumtala’, ‘Ranbir Singh’, ‘Jatinder Singh Kazikot’ and one unknown person were present in the Court premises. As per complainant ‘Prabh Gumtala’, who was known to him, came to him in the Court and said that they wanted to talk to him. According to complainant, he had noticed the movement of some persons, and therefore, got suspicious and called his brother.

#3. According to complainant, when he came out of the Court, ‘Prabh Gumtala’ asked him to accompany the above-mentioned four persons. As per complainant, thereafter, he was forcibly abducted by the above-said four persons in an Innova car and was taken to a rural area, where Rs.2,00,000/- were robbed from him on gun point. The complainant further alleged that when he was in the captivity of above-mentioned four persons, one of the abductors namely ‘Tejinder Singh’ contacted the petitioner through a video call. According to complainant, ‘Gurjinder Singh’ had even instructed the co- accused ‘Jatinder Singh’ to shoot the complainant. It was further stated by the complainant that thereafter, he was taken to police Station Goindwal Sahib, where his signatures and thumb-impressions were obtained on blank papers, CRM-M-29747-2026 (O&M) and after that the above-said abductors tried to drop him at Star Bucks outlet, but he refused, and therefore, he was dropped in his village.

#4. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned statement statement of complainant, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

#6. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that without any reliable evidence the petitioner, who was serving as SHO Police Station Goindwal Sahib has been implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the only role attributed to the petitioner is that during the period when the victim was in custody of abductors, he alongwith his captors visited Police Station, wherein the petitioner was posted as SHO and there some documents were got signed/thumb marked by the victim. As per learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of above- mentioned visit the petitioner was not present in the Police Station, and therefore, no role can be attributed to the petitioner with regard to alleged incident/crime.

#7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that present case is a very strange case, wherein there are allegations of abduction of a grown up man, who has long criminal history, and that as per allegations contained in the FIR during the captivity period, the victim was not only taken to a Police Station, but also to a public outlet of ‘Star Bucks’. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the video footage captured in the CCTV camera at above-mentioned outlet is available, wherein the victim is seen roaming at a public place, during the alleged period of captivity, alone and CRM-M-29747-2026 (O&M) freely. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is also very strange that despite kidnapping the abductors, dropped the victim near his place. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the entire story set-out by the prosecution is a cooked up story.

#8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that otherwise also the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than two months and eight days, and he has no criminal antecedents. On the above-mentioned ground the benefit of bail has been sought for the petitioner.

#9. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case electronic record showing conversation between the abductor and the petitioner is there, and that active connivance of the petitioner has been found during the course of investigation. While alleging that offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature, the learned State counsel has sought for dismissal of present petition.

#11. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: - i) that in the present case the benefit of anticipatory bail has already been accorded to co-accused; ii) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than two months and eight days; iii) that being a public servant there are minimal chances that on release on bail, the petitioner will abscond; CRM-M-29747-2026 (O&M) iv) that the story set-out by the prosecution with regard to incident of kidnapping itself is unnatural, as the prosecution case shows that during the course of abduction, the victim and the abductors not only visited the Police Station and got the paper signed, but also visited a public outlet of Star Bucks. v) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vi) that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; vii) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose; viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

#12. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being CRM-M-29747-2026 (O&M) incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.

#13. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

#14. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution CRM-M-29747-2026 (O&M) has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”.

#15. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

#16. 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 to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

#17. 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 bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovesaid concession shall be subject to 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 CRM-M-29747-2026 (O&M) the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, 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

17.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable