CRM-M-61373- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Hardeep Singh State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. A.S.Bathindewala Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the first regular bail petition under Section 2023 for grant of regular bail pending trial to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0079 dated 03.10.2024, registered at Police Station Cantt Bathinda under Sections 25/54/59/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 111 of the BNS, 2023. 2. As per 0079 dated 03.10.2024 registered at Police Station Cantt Bathinda. It is alleged that the applicant/accused Hardeep Singh @ Arshi, along with co Singh @ Karni, Resham Singh a 03.10.2024 by the police party of PS Cantt, Bathinda. During the said apprehension, country possession, consisting of four pistols of .32 bore, nine live cartrid magazines. 3. As per the record collected during investigation, the co-accused were stated to have criminal antecedents and such record was detailed in the police challan. On the basis of the aforesaid recovery, the police booked the -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Versus HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. A.S.Bathindewala, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first regular bail petition under Section 2023 for grant of regular bail pending trial to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0079 dated 03.10.2024, registered at Police Station Cantt Bathinda under Sections 25/54/59/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 111 of the BNS, 2023. As per the prosecution version, the present case arises out of FIR No. 0079 dated 03.10.2024 registered at Police Station Cantt Bathinda. It is alleged that the applicant/accused Hardeep Singh @ Arshi, along with co Singh @ Karni, Resham Singh and Jaspreet Singh @ Jassa, was apprehended on 03.10.2024 by the police party of PS Cantt, Bathinda. During the said apprehension, country-made weapons were allegedly recovered from their possession, consisting of four pistols of .32 bore, nine live cartrid As per the record collected during investigation, the accused were stated to have criminal antecedents and such record was detailed in the police challan. On the basis of the aforesaid recovery, the police booked the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61373-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. This is the first regular bail petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail pending trial to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0079 dated 03.10.2024, registered at Police Station Cantt Bathinda under Sections 25/54/59/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 111 of the BNS, 2023. the prosecution version, the present case arises out of FIR No. 0079 dated 03.10.2024 registered at Police Station Cantt Bathinda. It is alleged that the applicant/accused Hardeep Singh @ Arshi, along with co-accused Karanvir nd Jaspreet Singh @ Jassa, was apprehended on 03.10.2024 by the police party of PS Cantt, Bathinda. During the said made weapons were allegedly recovered from their possession, consisting of four pistols of .32 bore, nine live cartridges and three As per the record collected during investigation, the petitioner and the accused were stated to have criminal antecedents and such record was detailed in the police challan. On the basis of the aforesaid recovery, the police booked the 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail pending trial to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0079 dated 03.10.2024, registered at Police Station Cantt Bathinda under Sections the prosecution version, the present case arises out of FIR No. 0079 dated 03.10.2024 registered at Police Station Cantt Bathinda. It is alleged that accused Karanvir nd Jaspreet Singh @ Jassa, was apprehended on 03.10.2024 by the police party of PS Cantt, Bathinda. During the said made weapons were allegedly recovered from their ges and three and the accused were stated to have criminal antecedents and such record was detailed in the police challan. On the basis of the aforesaid recovery, the police booked the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.13 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-61373- petitioner and the co 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is a victim of false implication. It is submitted that as per the FIR, the petitioner and his c basis of secret information for allegedly carrying illegal weapons. It is further argued that the FIR was registered even before any alleged recovery was effected and thereafter the petitioner and his co .32 bore pistols, nine live cartridges and three magazines was shown to have been effected. 5. It is further contended that the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. The custody since 03.10.2024. It is also submitted that although the petitioner is stated to be involved in two other FIRs, he has not been declared a proclaimed offender and, as per the information received from his relatives, he is not invol other criminal case except those mentioned. 6. Learned counsel further submits that this is the first regular bail petition before this Hon’ble Court and the petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by Therefore, keeping in view the period of custody and the stage of the trial, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail application and h 8. As per the short reply, it is contended that the petitioner was apprehended along with the co -2025 (O&M) and the co-accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 11 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is a victim of false implication. It is submitted that as per the FIR, the petitioner and his c basis of secret information for allegedly carrying illegal weapons. It is further argued that the FIR was registered even before any alleged recovery was effected and thereafter the petitioner and his co-accused were stopped and .32 bore pistols, nine live cartridges and three magazines was shown to have been It is further contended that the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. The custody since 03.10.2024. It is also submitted that although the petitioner is stated to be involved in two other FIRs, he has not been declared a proclaimed offender and, as per the information received from his relatives, he is not invol other criminal case except those mentioned. Learned counsel further submits that this is the first regular bail petition before this Hon’ble Court and the petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by Therefore, keeping in view the period of custody and the stage of the trial, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail application and has filed a short reply to the petition. As per the short reply, it is contended that the petitioner was apprehended along with the co-accused and from his conscious possession one -2- accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is a victim of false implication. It is submitted that as per the FIR, the petitioner and his co-accused were named on the basis of secret information for allegedly carrying illegal weapons. It is further argued that the FIR was registered even before any alleged recovery was effected accused were stopped and recovery of four .32 bore pistols, nine live cartridges and three magazines was shown to have been It is further contended that the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. The petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2024. It is also submitted that although the petitioner is stated to be involved in two other FIRs, he has not been declared a proclaimed offender and, as per the information received from his relatives, he is not involved in any Learned counsel further submits that this is the first regular bail petition before this Hon’ble Court and the petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. Therefore, keeping in view the period of custody and the stage of the trial, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail as filed a short reply to the petition. As per the short reply, it is contended that the petitioner was accused and from his conscious possession one accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is a victim of false implication. It is accused were named on the basis of secret information for allegedly carrying illegal weapons. It is further argued that the FIR was registered even before any alleged recovery was effected recovery of four .32 bore pistols, nine live cartridges and three magazines was shown to have been It is further contended that the challan has already been presented and petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2024. It is also submitted that although the petitioner is stated to be involved in two other FIRs, he has not been declared a proclaimed offender ved in any Learned counsel further submits that this is the first regular bail petition before this Hon’ble Court and the petitioner undertakes to abide by all the this Court while granting bail. Therefore, keeping in view the period of custody and the stage of the trial, the On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail As per the short reply, it is contended that the petitioner was accused and from his conscious possession one TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.13 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-61373- country-made .32 bore pistol along with three live cartridges in the mag recovered. Apart from the said weapon, one mobile phone (I SIM) and a currency note of Rs.100/ search. It is further submitted that apart from the present FIR, the petitioner is involved in other criminal cases, details whereof have been mentioned in the reply, and trials in those cases are pending. The State has emphasized that the antecedents of the petitioner reveal that he is habitual of committing serious offences. 9. It is further conte offence in connivance with the co is every likelihood that he may again indulge in similar criminal activities or may abscond and evade the process of law. O dismissal of the present bail application. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. 11. The petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2024 and has undergone incarceration for about one year and four months. The investigation in the present case stands completed and the challan has already been presented before the learned trial Court. The trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. Continued detention of the petiti yet to make substantial progress, would not serve any useful purpose. 12. So far as the recovery is concerned, as per the prosecution case itself, the alleged recovery of one country cartridges in the magazine has already been effected from the petitioner at the time of his apprehension. Nothing further remains to be recovered from him. Therefore, his further custodial interrogation is not required. -2025 (O&M) made .32 bore pistol along with three live cartridges in the mag recovered. Apart from the said weapon, one mobile phone (I SIM) and a currency note of Rs.100/- were also recovered from his personal search. It is further submitted that apart from the present FIR, the petitioner is ther criminal cases, details whereof have been mentioned in the reply, and trials in those cases are pending. The State has emphasized that the antecedents of the petitioner reveal that he is habitual of committing serious offences. It is further contended that the petitioner has committed a serious offence in connivance with the co-accused and in case he is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may again indulge in similar criminal activities or may abscond and evade the process of law. On these grounds, the State has prayed for dismissal of the present bail application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused The petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2024 and has undergone for about one year and four months. The investigation in the present case stands completed and the challan has already been presented before the learned trial Court. The trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. Continued detention of the petitioner for an indefinite period, particularly when the trial has yet to make substantial progress, would not serve any useful purpose. So far as the recovery is concerned, as per the prosecution case itself, the alleged recovery of one country-made .32 cartridges in the magazine has already been effected from the petitioner at the time of his apprehension. Nothing further remains to be recovered from him. Therefore, his further custodial interrogation is not required. -3- made .32 bore pistol along with three live cartridges in the magazine was recovered. Apart from the said weapon, one mobile phone (I phone-X without were also recovered from his personal search. It is further submitted that apart from the present FIR, the petitioner is ther criminal cases, details whereof have been mentioned in the reply, and trials in those cases are pending. The State has emphasized that the antecedents of the petitioner reveal that he is habitual of committing serious offences. nded that the petitioner has committed a serious accused and in case he is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may again indulge in similar criminal activities or may n these grounds, the State has prayed for I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused The petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2024 and has undergone for about one year and four months. The investigation in the present case stands completed and the challan has already been presented before the learned trial Court. The trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. Continued oner for an indefinite period, particularly when the trial has yet to make substantial progress, would not serve any useful purpose. So far as the recovery is concerned, as per the prosecution case itself, made .32 bore pistol along with three live cartridges in the magazine has already been effected from the petitioner at the time of his apprehension. Nothing further remains to be recovered from him. Therefore, his further custodial interrogation is not required. azine was X without were also recovered from his personal search. It is further submitted that apart from the present FIR, the petitioner is ther criminal cases, details whereof have been mentioned in the reply, and trials in those cases are pending. The State has emphasized that the antecedents nded that the petitioner has committed a serious accused and in case he is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may again indulge in similar criminal activities or may n these grounds, the State has prayed for I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused The petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2024 and has undergone for about one year and four months. The investigation in the present case stands completed and the challan has already been presented before the learned trial Court. The trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. Continued oner for an indefinite period, particularly when the trial has So far as the recovery is concerned, as per the prosecution case itself, bore pistol along with three live cartridges in the magazine has already been effected from the petitioner at the time of his apprehension. Nothing further remains to be recovered from him. Therefore, TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.13 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-61373- 13. The principal contention of the State is with regard to the applicability of Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to organized crime. A perusal of the record indicates that the invocation of Section 111 BNS is primarily on account of the petitioner’s alleged involvement in two other criminal cases. However, mere registration of two other FIRs against the petitioner, both of which are stated to be pending trial, would not, by itself, prima facie establish that he is a member of an org organized crime group within the meaning of Section 111 BNS. The ingredients of organized crime require more than isolated allegations or pen stage, there is no material broug structured organized crime syndicate or the petitioner’s active membership thereof. 14. It is also to be noted that the petitioner has not been declared a proclaimed offender. The presumption of innocence ope allegations are yet to be tested during trial. The gravity of the offence cannot be the sole ground to deny bail when the petitioner has already undergone substantial period of custody and the trial is likely to take time. 15. Without commenting upon the merits of the case and keeping in view the period of custody of about one year and four months, the fact that recovery has already been effected, investigation is complete, challan stands presented, and that the applicability of this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. 16. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner Hardeep Singh shall be registered at Police Station Cantt Bathinda under Sections 25/54/59/27 of the Arms -2025 (O&M) The principal contention of the State is with regard to the applicability of Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to organized crime. A perusal of the record indicates that the invocation of Section 111 BNS is primarily f the petitioner’s alleged involvement in two other criminal cases. However, mere registration of two other FIRs against the petitioner, both of which are stated to be pending trial, would not, by itself, prima facie establish that he is a member of an organized crime syndicate or that he has acted as part of an organized crime group within the meaning of Section 111 BNS. The ingredients of organized crime require more than isolated allegations or pen stage, there is no material brought on record to demonstrate the existence of a structured organized crime syndicate or the petitioner’s active membership thereof. It is also to be noted that the petitioner has not been declared a proclaimed offender. The presumption of innocence ope allegations are yet to be tested during trial. The gravity of the offence cannot be the sole ground to deny bail when the petitioner has already undergone substantial period of custody and the trial is likely to take time. Without commenting upon the merits of the case and keeping in view the period of custody of about one year and four months, the fact that recovery has already been effected, investigation is complete, challan stands presented, and that the applicability of Section 111 BNS would be a matter of evidence during trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner Hardeep Singh shall be released on regular bail in FIR No. 0079 dated 03.10.2024 registered at Police Station Cantt Bathinda under Sections 25/54/59/27 of the Arms -4- The principal contention of the State is with regard to the applicability of Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to organized crime. A perusal of the record indicates that the invocation of Section 111 BNS is primarily f the petitioner’s alleged involvement in two other criminal cases. However, mere registration of two other FIRs against the petitioner, both of which are stated to be pending trial, would not, by itself, prima facie establish that he is a anized crime syndicate or that he has acted as part of an organized crime group within the meaning of Section 111 BNS. The ingredients of organized crime require more than isolated allegations or pendency of cases, at this ht on record to demonstrate the existence of a structured organized crime syndicate or the petitioner’s active membership thereof. It is also to be noted that the petitioner has not been declared a proclaimed offender. The presumption of innocence operates in his favour and the allegations are yet to be tested during trial. The gravity of the offence cannot be the sole ground to deny bail when the petitioner has already undergone substantial period of custody and the trial is likely to take time. Without commenting upon the merits of the case and keeping in view the period of custody of about one year and four months, the fact that recovery has already been effected, investigation is complete, challan stands presented, and that Section 111 BNS would be a matter of evidence during trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner Hardeep released on regular bail in FIR No. 0079 dated 03.10.2024 registered at Police Station Cantt Bathinda under Sections 25/54/59/27 of the Arms The principal contention of the State is with regard to the applicability of Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to organized crime. A perusal of the record indicates that the invocation of Section 111 BNS is primarily f the petitioner’s alleged involvement in two other criminal cases. However, mere registration of two other FIRs against the petitioner, both of which are stated to be pending trial, would not, by itself, prima facie establish that he is a anized crime syndicate or that he has acted as part of an organized crime group within the meaning of Section 111 BNS. The ingredients of at this ht on record to demonstrate the existence of a structured organized crime syndicate or the petitioner’s active membership thereof. It is also to be noted that the petitioner has not been declared a rates in his favour and the allegations are yet to be tested during trial. The gravity of the offence cannot be the sole ground to deny bail when the petitioner has already undergone substantial Without commenting upon the merits of the case and keeping in view the period of custody of about one year and four months, the fact that recovery has already been effected, investigation is complete, challan stands presented, and that Section 111 BNS would be a matter of evidence during trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner Hardeep released on regular bail in FIR No. 0079 dated 03.10.2024 registered at Police Station Cantt Bathinda under Sections 25/54/59/27 of the Arms TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.13 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-61373- Act, 1959 and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to the condition that he shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall appear before the trial Court on each and every d accordance with law. 17. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. February 13, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) Act, 1959 and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to the condition that he shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing unless exempted in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- Act, 1959 and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, subject to his surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to the condition that he shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall appear ate of hearing unless exempted in Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No Act, 1959 and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, subject to his surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to the condition that he shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall appear ate of hearing unless exempted in TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.13 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document