K.U. v. State of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-34472-2026 (O&M)

Decided on: 08.09.2026

K.U. @ S.U. . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present: Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, Asst. A.G., Punjab.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

[NyayVidhan notes: (1) The table of four earlier FIRs quoted in paragraph 2 from the status report is not reproduced, because it names the complainant and the persons accused in sexual-offence cases; a note marks its place. (2) The two co-accused are shown by bracketed initials, [V.] and [R.S.]. (3) The order has no paragraph 6 (paragraph 5 is followed by paragraph 7); the Court's numbering is kept as printed. Unnumbered paragraph breaks are kept as in the print. (4) The order refers to the petitioner as 'his' in paragraphs 5 and 8; kept as printed. The official PDF is the authoritative text.]

[NyayVidhan note: the petitioner's name and alias are replaced by initials (K.U. @ S.U.).]

1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 0011 dated 08.08.2023, under Sections 120-B IPC (Section 61 of the BNS), 199 IPC (Section 236 of the BNS), 200 IPC (Section 237 of the BNS), 211 IPC (Section 248 of the BNS), 384 IPC (Section 308 of the BNS), 420 IPC (Section 318(4) of the BNS), 388 IPC (Section 308 of the BNS), 389 IPC, 465 IPC (Section 336 of the BNS), 467 IPC (338 of BNS), section 468 IPC (section 336(3) of BNS), section 471 IPC (Section 340(2) of the BNS), registered at Police Station State Crime Police Station, SAS Nagar, District Mohali.

First petition, i.e. CRM-M-60844-2025, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as withdrawn at that stage vide order dated 26.02.2026 (P-6).

2. Primarily, the allegations against the petitioner and the co-accused are that, pursuant to an investigation conducted by AIG, Crime Zone, Amritsar, it was revealed that one [V.], in connivance with the present petitioner, got multiple cases registered in the State of Punjab and Delhi with the ulterior motive of extorting money from individuals by making false allegations of rape against them. The details of such cases, along with their present status, are mentioned in paragraph No. 4 of the status report, which reads as under: [NyayVidhan note: the table of the four FIRs reproduced from paragraph 4 of the status report (FIR details, complainant, person registered against, present status) is not reproduced here.]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 13.03.2024, i.e. for a period of approximately 02 years, 05 months and 22 days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that co-accused [R.S.] was granted bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.09.2023 (P-3). It is, however, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, subsequently, during investigation, he was declared innocent.

Another co-accused, namely, [V.], was also ordered to be released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.07.2025 (P-4). She had remained in custody for a period of approximately 01 year and 03 months. As recorded in the order dated 04.07.2025 (supra), all the offences are triable by the Court of the learned Magistrate.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, out of a total of 30 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined and 01 witness has been given up, therefore, trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Learned counsel accordingly prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

5. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail, submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further submitted that the detailed status report has been filed, along with the custody certificate of the petitioner, which reflect his involvement in the alleged offence and the stage of the trial.

Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is alleged to have connived with co-accused [V.] in getting multiple cases registered on false allegations with the ulterior motive of extorting money from the alleged victims. It is further submitted that the prosecution has cited 30 witnesses, out of whom only 02 have been examined, while 01 witness has been given up. Learned State counsel, therefore, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the present petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

8. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner is in custody since 13.03.2024 and has already undergone incarceration for a substantial period of about 02 years and 05 months; co-accused [R.S.] was granted bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.09.2023 and was subsequently declared innocent during investigation; co-accused [V.] was also granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.07.2025 after remaining in custody for about 01 year and 03 months; all the offences are triable by the learned Magistrate; and out of 30 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined and 01 witness has been given up, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

9. Before parting with the order, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that with the advancement of technology, means of communication have evolved substantially and have facilitated the sharing of information across jurisdictions. In cases involving allegations of repeated or habitually filing of complaints, particularly where the antecedents of the complainant or the accused may have relevance, there is a need to consider whether a suitable national-level portal or database can be developed wherein such antecedents, subject to appropriate safeguards and verification, may be made available to the concerned investigating agencies. Such a mechanism may enable the agencies across the country to have prior information regarding the antecedents of persons involved in repeated proceedings and, wherever legally permissible and relevant, place such information before the competent Court at the appropriate stage. This would assist the investigating agencies as well as the Courts in taking an informed view, while ensuring that the rights and privacy of individuals are duly protected.

10. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the case independently, on the basis of evidence available on record, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

11. Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
08.09.2026