Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/48198/2026 of DIVANSHU ALIAS DIVU Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 2 September 2026
-1- 230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48198-2026 Date of decision: 02.09.2026 DIVANSHU ALIAS DIVU ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, Advocate and Ms. Jasleen Kaur
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-48198-2026 Date of decision: 02.09.2026 DIVANSHU ALIAS DIVU ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, Advocate and Ms. Jasleen Kaur Chhibber, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravneet Singh Lekhi, 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.81, dated 13.03.2026 registered at Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar, under Sections 304(2), 3(5), 317(2), 238, 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’).
2. Custody certificate dated 01.09.2026 filed today in Court is taken on record.
3. On 13.03.2026, the complainant-Paramjit Singh is alleged to have been intercepted by two boys on a motorcycle, while he was on his morning walk. It was alleged that the said boys hit him with a bat and snatched his mobile phone. A supplementary statement was given on 15.04.2026, naming NEERAJ
the present petitioner and one Yuvraj Ali Yuvi. Yuvraj Ali Yuvi was found to be a juvenile and was accordingly released on bail. The petitioner was apprehended on 25.05.2026 and is in custody since then.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that antecedents of the petitioner are clean; no recovery has been made from him; investigation has been completed; final report has been submitted and out of 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. He submits that 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.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. The petitioner was apprehended on 25.05.2026 and is in custody since then. The antecedents of the petitioner are stated to be clean. No recovery has been effected from him. Investigation stands completed; the final report has been submitted and out of 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. Trial will take a sufficiently long time and in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, NEERAJ
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) 02.09.2026
JUDGE neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No NEERAJ