CRA-D-863 v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 07 Jul 2026
- Bench
- VINOD S BHARDWA, SUKHVINDER KAUR
Outcome
Allowed
The instant appeal is allowed and the appellant is ordered to be
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 61(2), 111(1), 111(2), 111(3), 111(4), 249, 253
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
- Explosives Substance Act, 1908 ss. 3, 4, 5
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 25(6), 25(7)
- Aircraft Act, 1934 ss. 10, 11, 12
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. The instant appeal is allowed and the appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Mr. P.B.S. Goraya, Advocate for the appellant(s). Present :- Mr. P.B.S. Goraya, Advocate for the appellant(s) Mr. P.B.S. Goraya, Advocate for the appellant(s) Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The instant appeal has been preferred The preferred against the order dated
22.04.2026 passed passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Judge, Amritsar, whereby the second application application for grant of regular bail to the appellant in case arising out of FIR No. No.191 dated 03.12.2024 registered registered under Sections 111(1), 111(2), 111(3), 111(4), 249, 253, 61(2) of the the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 19 & 20 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Act, 1967, Sections 3, 4, 5 of the the Explosives Substance Act, 1908, Section 25(6), 25(6), 25(7) of the Arms Act 1959 1959 and Section 10, 11 and 12 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 at Police Station Cantonment, Cantonment, District Amritsar, dismissed. had been dismissed.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the that the case of the appellant is at par with co-accused that the case of the accused Rajbir Singh @ Raju to whom concession of concession of regular bail has already already been granted by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2026 passed in CRA-D-1243 vide order dated 1243-2025.
Learned State Counsel does not dispute the Learned State Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid facts. 223 CRA-D-863-2026(O&M) 2
I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
In view of the facts noticed above and taking into consideration that co-accused Rajbir Singh @ Raju has already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 06.04.2026 passed in CRA-D- 1243-2025, thus with a view to extend parity and keeping the case of the present appellant at par with the said co-accused, we deem it appropriate to enlarge the appellant on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Operative part
The instant appeal is allowed and the appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
It is made clear that the appellant shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.
The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE
07.07.2026 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The instant appeal is allowed and the appellant is ordered to be
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 61(2), 111(1), 111(2), 111(3), 111(4), 249, 253; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Explosives Substance Act, 1908 — ss. 3, 4, 5; Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 25(6), 25(7); Aircraft Act, 1934 — ss. 10, 11, 12.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 07 Jul 2026. The bench was VINOD S BHARDWA, SUKHVINDER KAUR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.