CRM-M-8061-2026 1 211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8061-2026 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 RANJIT SINGH ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), has been filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No.115 dated 20.07.2023, registered under Sections 302, 325, 323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding to Sections 103, 117(2), 115(2), 191(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), at Police Station Sadar Bathinda, District Bathinda, Punjab. 2. The present FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Jagsir Singh, father of the deceased Jasandeep Singh. As per the prosecution case, on 18.07.2023, the complainant received information that his son had sustained injuries in a quarrel at the Growth Centre where he was pursuing his studies. Upon reaching the Government Hospital, Bathinda, the injured disclosed that Ranjit Singh, Gurvinder Singh @ Guri, Amanjeet Singh @ Amna and 10-12 unknown persons had entered the Growth Centre and assaulted him with baseball bats and wooden sticks (dangs). It was alleged that the accused persons suspected the deceased of supporting one Sukhwinder KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-8061-2026 2 Singh @ Golu, owing to which they nursed a grudge against him and, with a common intention to eliminate him, caused multiple injuries. It is further the case of the prosecution that the injured was initially taken to the Government Hospital, Bathinda and thereafter referred to Badyal Hospital and subsequently to Adesh Hospital, Bhucho, where he succumbed to the injuries sustained during the occurrence. During investigation, the petitioner was nominated as an accused and arrested. Upon completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (now corresponding provisions of the BNSS) was presented before the learned Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is not named in the FIR. It is argued that no specific role or overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and neither any injury has been alleged to have been caused by him nor has any incriminating recovery been effected from his possession. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the investigation stands concluded and the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. It is also argued that the prosecution case rests upon allegations which are yet to be established during trial and that the petitioner has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. 3.2 It is further contended that several co-accused, namely Surinder Singh @ Nindo, Baljinder Singh @ Guri @ Lakha, Gurpal Singh @ Gourav, Gurjeevan Singh @ Jiwan Singh, Arshdeep Singh @ Ghuchi, Randeep Singh @ Roman and another, and Ranjit Singh @ Sapp, have already been granted KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-8061-2026 3 the concession of regular bail by this Court. The petitioner, therefore, claims parity with the said co-accused. 3.3 Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody, is not involved in any other criminal case, has not been declared a proclaimed offender, and undertakes to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is further submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 22.07.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 02 years 11 months and 27 days. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail. It is submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence wherein a young person lost his life as a result of the injuries inflicted during the occurrence. The allegations disclose that the assailants acted in furtherance of their common object and attacked the deceased with deadly weapons, resulting in his death. 6.1 Learned State counsel further submits that though the petitioner may not have been named in the FIR, he was nominated during the course of investigation on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Agency. It is argued that the challan has already been presented and sufficient evidence has been collected connecting the petitioner with the commission of the KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-8061-2026 4 alleged offence. Learned State counsel, while not disputing that certain co- accused have been granted regular bail, submits that the claim of parity cannot be accepted as a matter of course and the role attributed to each accused is required to be considered independently. 7. Be that as it may, considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioner, i.e. about 02 years 11 months and 27 days, the fact that the investigation stands concluded, the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court, and no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, this Court finds that continued incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, no specific role or injury has been attributed to him, and no incriminating recovery has been effected from his possession. He has been implicated on account of member of unlawful assembly. Furthermore, several co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. Charges have already been framed, however, only 03 of the prosecution witnesses has been examined till date. A new accused has surrendered and supplementary challan against him is yet to be submitted which would lead to de novo commencement of trial and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-8061-2026 5 (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency. 2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. 3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-8061-2026 6 petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change. 7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. 23.07.2026 (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) kv JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh