Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/39679/2026 of GURSANGAT SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 3 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39679-2026 Date of decision: 03.09.2026 GURSANGAT SINGH ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-39679-2026 Date of decision: 03.09.2026 GURSANGAT SINGH ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.
*** VIKRAM AGGARWAL,
J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 06, dated 17.01.2025 registered at Police Station Harike, District Tarn Taran, under Sections 309(4) [392 IPC], 333 [452 IPC], 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) and Section 25 of Arms Act.
2. Custody certificate dated 02.09.2026 filed today in Court is taken on record.
3. On the statement of one Sukhwinder Singh @ Shindu, the FIR in question was registered. The allegation is that on 16.01.2025, at about 8:15 p.m., when the complainant was present at his medical store, four young persons came in an i-20 car and one of them asked him to give medicine for stomach ache. When he was giving the medicine, two more persons came out NEERAJ
of the car and entered his shop. They took out pistols and while pointing the same on his forehead, asked him to hand over the cash. He was also hit on his forehead with the butt of the pistol. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- was taken away from his pocket. Upon investigation, one Sunny Singh @ Shani was arrested on 28.01.2025. Thereafter, the present petitioner was arrested on the basis of disclosure statement of the said Sunny Singh @ Shani on 11.02.2026 and is in custody since then.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the offence was allegedly committed by some unknown persons and no description of the said persons was given in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 06 months. He submits that he was arrested on the disclosure statement of co-accused-Sunny Singh @ Shani, who has been granted regular bail by a Co- ordinate Bench vide order dated 27.08.2025, passed in CRM-M-43560-2025 (Annexure P-4). He submits that the case of the petitioner is on a better footing than that of Sunny Singh @ Shani. He submits that the investigation stands completed; challan has been presented and charges have been framed on 16.09.2025. He submits that the trial will take a sufficiently long time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond and may also try to influence or threaten the witnesses. However, learned counsel has not been able to deny that the case of the petitioner is at par with that of Sunny Singh @ Shani. NEERAJ
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. Concededly, no description of the accused was given in the FIR. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he was arrested on the disclosure statement of co-accused-Sunny Singh @ Shani, who has been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 27.08.2025, passed in CRM-M- 43560-2025 (Annexure P-4). The case of the petitioner is at par with that of said Sunny Singh @ Shani. Investigation qua the petitioner has been completed and the final report has been submitted. The trial will take a sufficiently long time to conclude and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
8. 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, stand(s) disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) 03.09.2026
JUDGE neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No NEERAJ