Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/32242/2026 of CHARANJEET SINGH @ CHANNI Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 14 July 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 231 CRM-M-32242-2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 CHARANJEET SINGH @ CHANNI ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Ms. Diksha Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 14.07.2026
CHARANJEET SINGH @ CHANNI
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
... RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present:-
Ms. Diksha Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)
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.
1. This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C) in case FIR No. 68 dated 13.06.2025 under Sections 109,308(4) and 111 of BNS (corresponding Sections 307 & 383 of IPC respectively) and Sections 25,54 & 59 of the Arms Act; Section 61(2) of BNS (corresponding Section 120-B of IPC) added subsequently registered at Police Station Kotli Surat Mallian, Batala, District Gurdaspur.
2. In compliance of previous order, S.I. Harjinder Singh, SHO, Police Station Kotli Surat Mallia, is present in Court today.
3. The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons. During investigation, accused Dinesh Khatri and Dheeraj Khati alias Mota were nominated on the basis of secret information vide Rapat No. 41 dated 19.06.2025. After the arrest of Dinesh Khatri on the same day, the complainant RENU RAWAT
Chandigarh made a supplementary statement, pursuant to which the petitioner along with Daler Singh, Satbir Singh alias Sukh and Gurpinder Singh, was nominated. Subsequently, a .30 bore pistol was recovered at the instance of accused Daler Singh. It is further alleged that the co-accused suffered a disclosure statement that they were harbored by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner neither in the FIR nor in the supplementary statement suffered by the complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the time of alleged occurrence nor any recovery has been effected from him. It is further submitted that the co-accused Gurprinder Singh who was attributed with specific role of conducting recce has been granted concession of regular bail by the ld. trial Court vide order dated 17.09.2025. He further submits that the matter has been amicably compromised with the complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 21.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, and he deserves to be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial.
5. Notice of motion.
6. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that as per the custody RENU RAWAT
Chandigarh certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year and 17 days and is involved in two more cases.
7. On a query put by the Court, the Investigating Officer is unable to explain how the complainant could have named the petitioner as one of the accused in his supplementary statement. As of now, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he harbored the co-accused.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year and 17 days; apart from the disclosure statement there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence coupled with the fact that the trial is yet to commence and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.
10. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
11. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. RENU RAWAT
Chandigarh
12. It is clarified that if, while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 14.07.2026
(H.S.GREWAL) renu
JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT
Chandigarh