Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/23576/2026 of MALKIAT SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 20 July 2026
-1- 224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23576-2026 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 MALKIAT SINGH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.
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.
CRM-M-23576-2026 -1- 224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23576-2026 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 MALKIAT SINGH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.265 dated 29.11.2024 registered under Sections 103, 3(5) of BNSS, 2023 (Sections 302, 34 of IPC) and Section 27/5 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the fatal injury has been attributed to Raghbir Singh @ Mithu, who allegedly used a firearm to shoot at the deceased-Navneet Singh. The petitioner is not named in the FIR but has been identified as one of the unknown persons who raised a lalkara. As the petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2024 but only 02 of the 28 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. KUSUM
CRM-M-23576-2026 -2-
3. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has filed a reply dated 18.07.2026 by way of an affidavit of Sanjeev Singla, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-I, District Patiala, which is taken on record. While referring to the said reply, he states that there is a CCTV footage of the occurrence in which the accused are seen with muffled faces. The petitioner was arrested along with the main accused, namely Raghbir Singh @ Mithu, while travelling in a car and weapons including the firearm were recovered from the said vehicle. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2024 but only 02 of the 28 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. As per the case of prosecution, the petitioner is stated to have raised a lalkara. The culpability of the petitioner with the aid of Section 34 IPC, 1860 (Section 3(5) BNS, 2023) shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2024 but only 02 of the 28 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.
6. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and petitioner-Malkiat Singh S/o Shri Chet Singh is KUSUM
CRM-M-23576-2026 -3- ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
7. The petition stands disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 20.07.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No KUSUM