High Court · 2026

Judgment

1. The instant one is the third petition The etition that has been moved by the petitioner under S nder Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagari (for agarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) fo for grant of regular bail in case a

case arising out of FIR No.52 dated

24.06.2021 registe registered under Sections 336, 506, 3 506, 34 of IPC; Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 4 tion 4 of Explosive Substances Act (ad Act (added later on) at Police Station Sherpur, District S strict Sangrur. The previous two petit o petitions as filed by him had been dismissed as withd s withdrawn.

2. The aforementioned FIR was reg The s registered on the basis of the statement got rec recorded by the complainant N 2021 ant Nirbhay Singh on 24.06.2021 alleging therein t rein that his younger brother Malk Malkeet Singh was married with Jaspaljit Kaur in ur in the year 2017. Due to matri matrimonial discord having arisen between them, Jas m, Jaspaljit Kaur and her family memb members lodged complaints against AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72733- -2025 (O&M) 2 the family membe embers of the complainant. In the y the year 2019, his brother Malkeet Singh had gone to one to USA. Jaspaljit Kaur had also nila). d also settled in Philippine (Manila). His brother had in had informed him that on 18.06.202 sApp 6.2021, he had received WhatsApp messages and calls d calls thereby threatening him. On 2 . On 22.06.2021 also, he got a threat call and on asking asking of his brother, the complainan f his lainant checked the main gate of his house and found a ound a bullet to be piercing through th ough the same. His brother had told about this fact thr act through WhatsApp. By alleging t ns in ging that some unknown persons in order to frighten ghten his family, had fired shots with e ts with pistol outside his house, he prayed for taking a aking action in the matter.

3. After registration of FIR, investigatio After ated. stigation proceedings were initiated. Statements of m of material witnesses were record e of recorded. During the course of investigation, one n, one handgrenade was found on the r se of n the roof of the residential house of the complainant w nant which was diffused and was taken taken into possession and then was destroyed. Offenc Offence under Section 4 of the Explos ded. xplosive Substances Act was added. The accused Jasp d Jaspreet Singh @ Nuppi who was o was arrested in connection with another case beari e bearing FIR No.140 dated 04.07.202 .07.2021 registered at Police Station City II, Khanna su nna suffered disclosure statement abo about involvement of the present petitioner and him d himself in firing gunshots and thro d throwing handgrenade on the roof of the house of th e of the complainant. Both of them them were nominated as additional accused and were were arrested in this case on 23.07.20 3.07.2021. Investigation now stands concluded.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for t It is a l for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated icated in this case on the basis of discl f disclosure statement of co-accused AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72733- -2025 (O&M) 3 which cannot be c ot be considered to be admissible in ev ed in e in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. No incr o incriminating article has been reco is no n recovered from him. There is no material on record record to link him with the subject o f the bject offences under Section 4of the Explosive Substa Substances act. The matrimonial onial dispute between the family members of the f the complainant has been exclusi g to xclusively criminalized leading to prolonged incarce ncarceration of the petitioner without ithout any credible evidence linking him with the alleg e alleged offences. He is in custody fo s and ody for over a period of 04 years and 06 months. There There are no chances of conclusion of sion of trial in the near future as only 05 out of 22 prose prosecution witnesses have been exa en examined so far. Merely because of the fact that he hat he has been involved in some oth me other cases, he cannot be denied concession of bail of bail. With these broad submission tition sions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allo be allowed.

5. Status report and custody certificate h Status State icate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argue argued that there are serious and sp t the and specific allegations against the petitioner. He is He is a habitual offender. There ar itting here are chances of his committing similar offences, nces, if extended benefit of bail. It t the il. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not d s not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submis This C ubmissions made by learned counsel for both the parties parties at considerable length.

7. The petitioner was not nominated in t The p ed to ted in the FIR and has been linked to the offences on th on the basis of the disclosure statem statement of the co-accused Jaspreet Singh @ Nuppi. uppi. It is only on thorough asses o be assessment of the evidence to be AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72733- -2025 (O&M) 4 adduced during tr ing trial that any definite conclusion f the lusion as to the admissibility of the disclosure statem statement of the co-accused in ev No in evidence can be drawn. No incriminating arti g article or distinct fact is shown d in hown to have been discovered in pursuance of the f the alleged disclosure statement. n in ent. The petitioner has been in custody for a perio a period of 04 years, 06 months and 15 and 15 days now. The trial will take considerable time e time to conclude. It is well-settle settled law that the Court, while considering an app an application for grant of bail, has t , has to keep certain factors in mind such as whether th ther there is a prima facie case or rea or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has co has committed the offence, circumsta o the umstances which are peculiar to the accused, likelihoo elihood of the offence being repeated peated, the nature and gravity of the accusation, severit severity of the punishment in the even er of e event of conviction, the danger of the accused absc d absconding or fleeing if release released on bail, and reasonable apprehension of th n of the witnesses being threatened, et time, ned, etc. However, at the same time, the period of inc of incarceration is also a relevant f vant factor to be considered while deciding whether ether bail should be granted to an acc ence. an accused charged with an offence. The Hon’ble Ape e Apex Court has observed in a cat a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept i kept in custody for an indefinite p inite period of time, and the bail application can be can be considered on its own merits e ly. It erits even if it is filed repeatedly. It has also been held n held that every day spent in custod se of custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a ling a bail application under certain ci le is rtain circumstances. This principle is a part of the broad broader approach emphasizing that la that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the righ he rights of the accused with the requi requirements of the criminal justice system. Reliance i iance in this regard can be placed on y the ed on the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Co ex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Huss hi), Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72733- -2025 (O&M) 5 2023 SCC OnLi nLine SC 352, wherein it was t was observed that the jails are overcrowded and t d and their living conditions are, more . The , more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjusti unjustified imprisonment is that inm o be at inmates are more likely to be hardened rather th ther than reformed. Reliance can also n also be placed upon Manmandal and Another v. S v. State of West Bengal, Special L No. ial Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8656 of 2023 deci decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Pra 23 i Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC SC 110, wherein bail was granted ranted to the accused who had been incarcerated for a for a period of almost two to three y ly to hree years and the trial was likely to take considerable erable time. By observing that prolo t prolonged incarceration generally militates against t ainst the most precious fundamental r rticle ental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitu nstitution. The well settled propositio position of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exc n exception. Pre-trial incarceration s - ation should not be replica of post- conviction sentenc sentencing. The object of the jail is f the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during tria ing trial, and it cannot be preventive or tive or punitive.

8. On analyzing the peculiar facts and On an ts and circumstances of the present case in the light o light of the aforementioned principle t the nciples of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suff as suffered prolonged incarceration for s, 06 ion for over a period of 04 years, 06 months and 15 da days and the attendant facts and c , this and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opi the opinion that a case is made out for out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Acco . Accordingly, the petition is allowed a ed to owed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on b on bail on furnishing personal as al as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the of the learned trial Court/Chief Judici Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72733- -2025 (O&M) 6

9. In the event of there being any FIR In the t the y FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shal t shall be open to the respondent to g an t to seek redressal by filing an application seekin seeking cancellation of bail.

10. It is made clear that any observation It is m y for vation made herein above is only for the purpose of dec of deciding the present petition and t and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of th s of the case.

11. Since the main petition has been all Since n, if een allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered in ered infructuous.

20.02.2026 Amit Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:8)(cid:6) Yes/No (cid:1) (MANISHA BATRA)(cid:1) (MA JUDGE(cid:1) AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.