Gursewak Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the petitioner's custody period of 4 months and 23 days, the fact that he is not involved in any other case, and that the challan has been presented but charges are yet to be framed. The Court also noted the presence of 25 prosecution witnesses, indicating that the trial is likely to take considerable time. The Court reasoned that further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, provided he is not required in any other case. Specific conditions were imposed, including not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, appearing on each date, not committing similar offences, not dissuading witnesses from disclosing facts, not misusing liberty, and providing his address and mobile number to the trial court. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not prejudice the merits of the trial.

Facts

The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, filed a petition under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail. The petitioner was arrested on May 30, 2025, in connection with FIR No. 17, registered under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended) and Sections 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau F.S-I, Punjab, Mohali. The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated and has no connection with the alleged demand made by a co-accused, Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Jalandhar, concerning the blacklisting of the complainant's firm. The petitioner has been in custody for approximately 4 months and 23 days. Challan was presented on July 25, 2025, but charges have not yet been framed. There are 25 prosecution witnesses, and the petitioner is not involved in any other cases.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 17 registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 7 and 7-A of the PC Act and Section 61(2) of BNS). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, claims false implication and no involvement in the alleged demand. He highlights his custody period of approximately 4 months and 23 days, the presentation of the challan without framing of charges, the large number of prosecution witnesses (25), and his clean record with no other cases. He argues that continued incarceration would violate his Article 21 rights. Respondent's (State) arguments: The State, assisted by the complainant's counsel, opposes bail, citing an audio recording between the petitioner and the complainant. However, they could not controvert the submissions regarding the stage of the case and the petitioner's lack of prior involvement in other cases.