Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sagar vs State Of Punjab on 9 October, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-47038-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-47038-2025
Reserved on: 01.10.2025
Pronounced on: 09.10.2025
Sagar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, D.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
113 21.09.2024 City Rampura, Distt. 305, 331(4), 317(2), 317(4) of BNS
Bathinda
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.
2. In paragraph 9 of the bail petition, the petitioner declares that he has no criminal antecedents. However, as per para 16 of the reply, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Station 1. 52 01.01.2021 457, 411, 380 IPC Canal Colony, Bathinda 2. 116 06.06.2021 457, 380 IPC Canal Colony, Bathinda 3. 154 18.07.2021 411, 473, 379 IPC Canal Colony, Bathinda 4. 197 08.09.2011 457, 380, 411 IPC Canal Colony, Bathinda 5. 49 28.02.2022 457, 280, 411 IPC Canal Colony, Bathinda 6. 120 14.05.2022 411, 379B, 34 IPC Civil Lines, Bathinda 7. 216 17.12.2022 457, 380, 411 IPC Kotwali, Bathinda 8. 182 15.09.2023 457, 380, 411 IPC Canal Colony, Bathinda 9. 89 11.06.2024 457, 380, 411 IPC Canal Colony, Bathinda
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:
"4. That on 21.09.2024, Ashok Mehta, the complainant, suffered statement with the police to the effect that he was doing a private job in a state finance company. On 20.09.2024, as per his daily routine he came back to his house from his work and parked his motorcycle mark Splendor Plus bearing no. PB-12-BC-3245, Black color, in front of his house main gate. Thereafter, Raj Kumar, the complainant's father parked their white color 1 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 12:05:04 ::: CRM-M-47038-2025 Activa (Scooty) bearing no.PB-03-AA-4863 next to the aforesaid motorcycle of the complainant, in front of the complainant's house. After having meal, the complainant and his family went to sleep. When the complainant woke up and saw that his three mobile phones, Make 'POCO M-3 having SIM No.98145xxxx', 'POCO C-55 having SIM No. 87280- xxxx' and 'Keypad Make Nokia having SIM No.86997xxxx' were stolen and while reaching the complainant at main door of his house and he saw that both of the aforesaid vehicles were also stolen by unknown person. Initially, the complainant inquired on his own about stolen vehicles, but could be traced out. Thereafter the complainant got recorded his statement with the police qua the incident. As per statement of the complainant, he suffered loss of Rs.62,000/- the stolen articles as mentioned above.
5. That on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the FIR No.113 dated 21.09.2024, under Sections 305, 331 (4) BNS, 2023 PS-City Rampura, District Bathinda was registered against unknown."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family.
5. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.
6. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which reads as follows:
"ROLE OF THE ACCUSED-PETITIONER
17. That the committed accused-petitioner has committed serious offence in connivance with the co-accused by committing theft lurking into the house of the complainant and the antecedents of the accused-petitioner clearly states that he is a habitual offender. It is humbly submitted that if the accused-petitioner is enlarged on bail then there is likelihood that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may threaten or influence the prosecution witnesses and there is possibility that he may again indulge in similar criminal activities."
REASONING:
8. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing.
9. As per paragraph 3 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 02.07.2024. As per the custody certificate dated 01.10.2025, the petitioner's total custody 2 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 12:05:05 ::: CRM-M-47038-2025 in this FIR is 10 months and 27 days.
10. The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal.1In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial.--Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? --Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? --Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail.2 Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.3 Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Art. 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually, but judicially with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community.4 When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated.5
11. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
12. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.
13. Given the above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate, with or without sureties, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 10,000.
14. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead 1 Supreme Court of India in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. state of Rajasthan, [E-SCR] ; [2008] 17 SCR 369, Para 16, decided on 12.12.2008.
2Supreme Court of India in State of Kerala v. Raneef, SC 2J [E-SCR]; [2011] 1 SCR 590, Para 4, decided on 03.01.2011.
3Supreme Court of India in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, SC 2J [E-SCR], Paragraph 127, decided on 02.12.2010.
4Supreme Court of India in Babu Singh & ors v. State of UP, [E-SCR] P. 777, decided on 31.01.1978.
5Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI , [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 309, Para 26, [E-SCR], decided on 23.11.2011.
33 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 12:05:05 ::: CRM-M-47038-2025 of surety, the petitioner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 10,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the "Chief Judicial Magistrate" of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the petitioner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or until the surety bond has been discharged.
15. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
16. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
17. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
18. The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner's behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition.
19. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.
20. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
21. It is clarified that this bail order shall not be considered as a blanket bail order in any other matter and is only limited to granting bail in the FIR mentioned above.
22. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [Decided on 05.08.2025), in 4 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 12:05:05 ::: CRM-M-47038-2025 CRA-D-123-2020], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that "To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished."
23. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
09.10.2025
Jyoti-II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
5
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2025 12:05:05 :::