Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/28817/2026 of ARJAN KUMAR @ ARJUN Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 22 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 237 CRM-M-28817-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 Arjan Kumar @ Arjun …Petitioner V/s State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul
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-28817-2026
Date of Decision: 22.07.2026
Arjan Kumar @ Arjun
…Petitioner
V/s State of Punjab
…Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.
*** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.65, dated 16.04.2025 registered under Sections 111 and 304 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda, District Bathinda.
2. A police party, while on patrol got a secret information on 16.04.2025 that two persons namely Jugnu Kumar and Arjan Kumar (present petitioner), armed with deadly weapons and with the intention of snatching passers bye, had tried to stop a motorcycle rider. As per the information, they were standing with the intention of committing the offence of snatching and that a number of cases already stood registered against them. Accordingly, a raid was conducted and the said Jugnu Kumar and the petitioner were arrested. Certain odyssey weapons were recovered from them. The petitioner was found to be involved in one previous case as well. During investigation, it was also found that a sum of Rs.400/- had previously been snatched by the accused from one Vishal. VIKAS CHANDER 2026.07.22 18.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-28817-2026
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 16.04.2025 and is in custody since then; final report has been submitted but evidence of the prosecution has not commenced and, therefore, trial will take a sufficiently long time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the State has opposed the bail petition.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. Concededly, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than one year, he having been arrested on 16.04.2025. Notably, he was arrested on the basis of a secret information stating that the petitioner and his co-accused were standing with an intention of committing the offence of snatching. No offence had, however, been committed at that point of time. Investigation has concluded and final report has been submitted though evidence of the prosecution is yet to commence. The trial will, therefore, take a sufficiently long time to conclude and 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.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE July 22, 2026 vcgarg
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable
: Yes/No VIKAS CHANDER 2026.07.22 18.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document