CRM-M No. 36137 of 2026 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 483
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 201, 341, 392, 398, 411
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE July 10, 2026 Mani Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ranwant Singh Sangha, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.). Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab. *** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) This is the second petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.165 dated 05.10.2023 registered under Sections 392 and 34 of IPC (offence under Sections 411, 201, 341 and 398 IPC added subsequently) at Police Station Jhunir, District Mansa. First application was withdrawn on 01.09.2025.
Custody certificate dated 09.07.2026 filed in Court today is taken on record.
As per the case of the prosecution, on a statement of one Surinder Singh, the instant FIR was registered. It was alleged by him that he was working as a Gateman at Thermal Plant TSPL Talwandi Sabo. On
04.10.2023 at about 08:45 PM after his duty ended, he was going back to his house on his motorcycle. At about 09:45 PM, when he turned towards village Khiali Chehlanwali, 3 youths were standing on the road out of whom, one had a motorcycle. One of the youth was holding a sword in his CRM-M-36137-2026 (O&M) -2- hand, whereas the second one was holding an iron rod fitted with a pulley at one end and the third person was having a knife in his hand. They stopped the complainant. The person who was holding a knife, snatched two mobile phones and Rs.300/- from him. Thereafter, all three persons fled from the spot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and investigation has been completed; final report was submitted long back; charges were framed as far as back on
19.10.2024 but till date no witness has been examined. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years and 9 months; co-accused Jagjiwan Singh @ Jagjeevan Singh @ Kali and Hardev Singh have been granted regular bail vide order dated 11.01.2024 and 05.11.2024 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) passed in CRM-M-329-2024 and CRM-M-32637-2024, respectively.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that antecedents of the petitioner are not clean, he being involved in a number of other criminal cases.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years and 9 months. Investigation was completed long back and charges were framed as far as back on 19.10.2024. However, strangely enough, till date no witness has been examined thereby seriously prejudicing the right of the petitioner to a speedy trial. Still further co-accused Jagjiwan Singh @ Jagjeevan Singh @ Kali and Hardev Singh have been granted regular bail by Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 11.01.2024 and 05.11.2024 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) passed in CRM-M-329-2024 and CRM-M-32637-2024, respectively. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be CRM-M-36137-2026 (O&M) -3- released on bail.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE July 10, 2026 Mani Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 201, 341, 392, 398, 411.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 10 Jul 2026. The bench was VIKRAM AGGARWAL.
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.