CRM-M/37602/2026 of MANDEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 23 July 2026

225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.37602 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 23.07.2026

Mandeep Singh Hundal …..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Varinder Kumar Dhiman, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

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.49 dated 18.02.2026 registered under Sections 125 and 324(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) [Sections 61(2), 308(5) and 109 BNS added subsequently] and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2. Custody certificate dated 22.07.2026 filed in Court today, is taken on record.

3. On a complaint submitted by one Gurjot Singh, the FIR in question was registered. The allegation was that on 17.02.2026, while the YAG DUTT

complainant was asleep at his house (H. No.138, Sector 69, Mohali), some unknown persons fired multiple rounds at his house and his Mercedes vehicle. The complainant became aware of the incident on the morning of 18.02.2026. The complainant further stated that he had previously received multiple threatening calls and messages from certain individuals claiming to be associated with Punjab based gangsters and suspected that the incident may be connected to those threats. During the course of investigation, a suspicious phone number was zeroed in, pursuant to which one Rishav was arrested. He suffered a disclosure statement naming few other persons including the present petitioner and stated that all these persons had conspired to carry out the gun-shot firing with an intention to kill the complainant and to extract money for extortion. He also stated that Rishav and Sukhmanpreet Singh had gone to Madhya Pradesh and had collected four pistols. He further disclosed that a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- had been given to them by Mandeep Singh (present petitioner) for the said purpose. He gave certain other details of the incident as well.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that even as per the investigating agency, the shots had been fired by co-accused Rishav and Sukhmanpreet Singh, who are already in custody. He submits that the petitioner was named in the disclosure statement of co-accused Rishav. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.03.2026; final report has been submitted and the trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. YAG DUTT

Still further, learned counsel contends that co-accused namely Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukh and Ajit Singh @ Ashu have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 02.07.2026 passed in CRM-M- No.31716 of 2026 and 22.07.2026 passed in CRM-M No.36953 of 2026 respectively.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application stating that the allegations are serious in nature.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. Concededly, the petitioner, even as per the disclosure statement, was not present at the time of the incident. He is in custody since 18.03.2026. Final report has been submitted. As to whether he had actually provided some finances or not shall be determined when the trial concludes. No recovery has been made from him. The trial will take a sufficiently long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. The case of the petitioner is at par with that of co-accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukh and Ajit Singh @ Ashu, who have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 02.07.2026 passed in CRM-M-No.31716 of 2026 and 22.07.2026 passed in CRM-M No.36953 of 2026 respectively. Trial will still take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present YAG DUTT

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.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 23, 2026

JUDGE Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT