(Oral):

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.24 dated 09.04.2025 registered under Sections 305, 331(3) and 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) at Police Station Division No.4, District Ludhiana.

2. The  aforementioned  FIR  was  registered  on  the  basis  of  the statement recorded by complainant S.K. Nasim Uddin on 09.04.2025 alleging therein that he was running a jewellery business at Ludhiana and was having a shop therein, where around 15 workers were employed. On 05.04.2025, he had brought gold jewelleries of 200 grams from Sirhind for the purpose of designing. On 06.04.2025, his brother had also brought 300 grams of gold from another jeweler for designing purposes. The complainant alleged that on 6.04.2025, one person came to their shop and introduced himself as S.K. Rajesh. He told the complainant that he had come from Kolkata for the purpose of crafting jewellery as called by them.  He stayed at their shop and worked with them and crafted the jewelleries. However, in the intervening night of 8/9.04.2025, by stealing gold jewlleries weighing 500 grams, he left their shop. This fact was confirmed by them after watching the CCTV footage of the shop. By alleging that the above said S.K. Rajesh had stolen gold jewelleries from his shop, the complainant prayed for taking action in the matter.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, it was revealed that the jewellery had been stolen by the accused-Jinnak Shekh @ Shafijul by impersonating himself with the name of one S.K. Rajesh and claiming that he was a craftsman and came from Kolkata for the purpose of doing jewellery work. The accused was found to be in custody in some other case and his appearance was secured by way of securing production warr nts and was formally arrested on 11.10.2025. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and had disclosed that 300 grams out of stolen gold had been sold to one Ziyaul Haque Halder @ Bapi i.e. the petitioner and 100 grams of gold to Rijul Islam Khandkar. The petitioner was arrested on 27.10.2025. An amount of Rs.26,730/- was recovered from the present petitioner and offence under Section 317(2) of BNS was added. Investigation now stands concluded and the petitioner alognwith co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the coaccused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. A false recovery  has  been  planted upon him. He is not  required for  further investigation.  The trial will take considerable time to conclude.  He has clean antecedents. The co-accused Navnath Tanhaji Misal @ Rotan has already been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. There are chances of his absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by both the parties at considerable length.

7. The petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the accused. The petitioner is alleged to have purchased 300 grams of stolen gold from the accused- Jinnak Shekh @ Shafijul. He is in custody since 27.10.2025. The trial will obviously take considerable time to conclude since even charges have not been framed as against the petitioner. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. The well settled proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of post-conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. As such this Court is of the considered opinion that the continued detention  of petitioner would not serve any  fruitful purpose. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds  to the extent of 02 sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:-

                   (i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever.

                   (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court.

                   (iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of hearing.

                   (iv) The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as the address where he would be residing after release and shall not change the same without informing the concerned IO/SHO.

                   (v) The petitioner shall upon his release give his mobile phone number to concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched at all times.

                   (vi) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, furnish details of his cell phone and Aadhar card, and shall not change his mobile number(s) during the pendency of the trial.

                   (vii) The petitioner shall visit the Police Station Div. No.4, Ludhiana on 1st Monday of every alternate month and shall record his presence before the concerned SHO and in case he does not appear before the concerned SHO, the latter shall inform the Trial Magistrate who will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner. The concerned SHO shall be intimated about this order through learned State counsel.

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

9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

10. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.