CRM-M-24467-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CRM-M-24467-2026 Date of decision: 17th July, 2026 Satinderbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 01 dated 03.01.2024 registered under Sections 304(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Verka, District Amritsar. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by the complainant-Arshdeep Singh, alleging that he was posted as a Cash Recovery Officer in Bharat Finance Inclusion Limited Company. On 03.01.2024, after recovering money from the loanees, he had received a cash amount of ₹44,185/- from his Centre Leader-Satnam Singh, and was proceeding towards Tirath Nagar, Verka, on his motorcycle, when on PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.17 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24467-2026 (O&M) -2- the way, he noticed two youths with muffled faces following him on another motorcycle. On becoming suspicious, he increased the speed of his motorcycle, but the said persons intercepted him and started shouting at him. Out of fear, his motorcycle slipped and he fell on the road. He rushed towards a nearby house to save his life and the cash. However, the said youths, by showing him a pistol and threatening him, tried to snatch his bag. When he protested, one of them fired a shot from the pistol, which hit the ground. Thereafter, out of fear, the assailants snatched his money bag as well as a biometric tablet kept therein and fled from the spot. By alleging that he could identify the assailants, he prayed for taking legal action against them. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The complainant recorded his supplementary statement on 11.01.2024 stating that he had come to know that the present petitioner, along with co-accused Nirmal Singh, was involved in the occurrence. Consequently, both of them were nominated as accused. Accused Nirmal Singh @ Nimma @ Dhella, who was already lodged in custody in another case, was joined in the investigation of the present case and was formally arrested. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the occurrence and also disclosed the participation of the present petitioner, stating that the petitioner was driving the motorcycle at the time of the incident. He further stated that the pistol used in the crime had already been got recovered by him in another case. The present petitioner was arrested on 12.02.2026. Investigation qua him stands completed. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.17 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24467-2026 (O&M) -3- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is no longer required for further investigation. It is submitted that the complainant has already been examined in the trial of the co-accused and has turned hostile by not identifying him as one of the persons who had committed the snatching. It is further contended that on the ground of parity, the petitioner also deserves the concession of regular bail. Moreover, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. His antecedents are not clean as he is involved in another criminal case. There is every likelihood of his committing similar offences, if released on bail. It is further argued that the complainant in the present case is yet to be examined and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused in whose trial the complainant had turned hostile. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioner, along with the co-accused, is alleged to have snatched money from the complainant by extending threats to him and by assaulting him. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.17 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24467-2026 (O&M) -4- complainant is yet to be examined. The petitioner was arrested after a substantial delay from the date of registration of the FIR. The complainant and other material prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined in this case. The fact that the complainant, while deposing in the trial of co-accused Nirmal Singh, has not identified him as one of the snatchers, does not help the petitioner at this stage in any manner as complainant is yet to be examined in the present case. The trial has already commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in its conclusion. The petitioner is also found to be involved in another case registered under Section 262 of the BNS, meaning thereby his antecedents are not clean. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 8. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 17th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.17 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document