Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagpreet Singh @ Jagga vs State Of Punjab on 5 August, 2026
CRM-M-42213-2026 1
220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-42213-2026
Date of Decision: 05.08.2026
XXXXXXX ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Vinod K. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973), has been filed seeking the grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in FIR No. 141 dated 12.09.2025, initially registered under Sections
48, 111, 109, 61(2), 324(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(corresponding to Sections 307, 120-B, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station
Ramdas, District Amritsar (Rural). During the course of investigation,
offences under Sections 103, 308(4), 351(3), 238, 191(3) and 190 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 302, 387, 506, 201,
148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) were added, whereas the offence
under Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) was deleted.
2. As per the prosecution, the present FIR was registered on the
statement of Major Singh, brother of the injured Kulwinder Singh. It is alleged
that Kulwinder Singh, who was running a private hospital and also working as
KUMUD VERMA
2026.08.05 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRM-M-42213-2026 2
a commission agent, had been receiving extortion calls since May, 2025 from
one Swarn Singh @ Jeevan Fauji, who demanded ₹50 lakhs and threatened
him with dire consequences. It is further alleged that an earlier attempt was
also made on 11.07.2025, when two unidentified assailants allegedly opened
fire at Kulwinder Singh outside his hospital, pursuant to which a separate FIR
had already been registered. It is the further case of the prosecution that on
12.09.2025, at about 12:10 p.m., three unidentified youths arrived at Bhangu
Hospital on a motorcycle, out of whom two entered the hospital on the pretext
of purchasing medicines and opened fire at Kulwinder Singh with an intention
to kill him, causing firearm injuries. The assailants fled from the spot after the
occurrence. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, present FIR
came to be registered against Swarn Singh @ Jeevan Fauji and three unknown
assailants under the relevant provisions of the BNS, 2023 and the Arms Act.
Subsequently, Kulwinder Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained in the
incident on 05.10.2025, whereupon the offence under Section 103 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 302 IPC), along
with other allied offences, was added. During the course of investigation, on
the basis of secret information, the present petitioner was arrested on
17.09.2025 and nominated as one of the assailants. Upon completion of the
investigation, the challan has been 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
contended that the occurrence, as narrated in the FIR, attributes the
commission of the offence to three unidentified assailants who had covered
their faces and had arrived on an unnumbered motorcycle. Learned counsel
KUMUD VERMA
2026.08.05 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRM-M-42213-2026 3
submits that there was neither any description of the assailants nor any
identifying feature of the motorcycle mentioned in the earliest version, and,
therefore, the subsequent implication of the petitioner solely on the basis of
alleged secret information is wholly improbable and legally unsustainable. It
is further submitted that no test identification parade was ever conducted to
establish the identity of the petitioner as one of the alleged assailants.
3.1 Learned counsel further argues that no recovery of any weapon,
incriminating article or other material has been effected from the petitioner
and there is no direct evidence connecting him with the commission of the
alleged offence. It is contended that the petitioner, who is a juvenile by date of
birth and is pursuing the present petition through his mother, has remained in
judicial custody since 17.09.2025. The investigation stands concluded, the
challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court, charges
were framed on 05.05.2026, and despite there being 29 prosecution witnesses,
not even a single witness has been examined till date, indicating that the trial
is likely to consume considerable time.
3.2 Learned counsel further submits that similarly situated co-
accused Karamjit Singh @Karanjeet Singh @ Vansh has already been granted
the concession of regular bail by this Court in CRM-M-32681-2026 vide order
dated 25.06.2026. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not
involved in any other criminal case, has never been declared a proclaimed
offender and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the
prosecution evidence. It is also pointed out that similarly situated co-accused
have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. In
these circumstances, it is prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail.
KUMUD VERMA
2026.08.05 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRM-M-42213-2026 4
4. Notice of motion.
5. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf
of the respondent-State and has opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail
and submits that the petitioner is involved in a grave and heinous offence
involving a pre-planned attack on the victim pursuant to an extortion
conspiracy. It is contended that during the course of investigation, the
petitioner was nominated on the basis of credible secret information and
sufficient incriminating material has been collected connecting him with the
commission of the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that the
victim ultimately succumbed to the firearm injuries sustained in the
occurrence, whereupon the offence under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 302 IPC) and other allied offences
were added.
6. Be that as it may, considering the custody period already
undergone by the petitioner since 17.09.2025, the fact that the investigation
stands concluded, the challan has already been presented before the learned
Trial Court and charges have been framed on 05.05.2026, the petitioner is no
longer required for custodial interrogation. It is further noticed that the
petitioner was not named in the FIR and came to be implicated during the
course of investigation after his arrest on the basis of secret information. The
correctness of the prosecution version and the evidentiary value of the
material relied upon to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence are
matters which shall be examined during the course of trial. It is also a matter
of record that the petitioner claims to be a juvenile on the date of the alleged
occurrence and is prosecuting the present petition through his mother, which is
KUMUD VERMA
2026.08.05 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRM-M-42213-2026 5
also a relevant circumstance at this stage. Role attributed to the petitioner is
that he was given a stolen motor-cycle to co-accused which was used by the
co-accused in reccee of place of occurrence prior to actual commission of
offence. There is no specific attribution against the petitioner. Furthermore,
out of the 29 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, not even a single
witness has been examined till date, indicating that the trial is likely to take
considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. It is also not disputed that
similarly situated co-accused have already been granted the concession of
regular bail by this Court and no distinguishing feature has been pointed out
by the learned State counsel so as to deny the petitioner the benefit of parity.
In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose.
7. 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.
(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.
KUMUD VERMA
2026.08.05 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRM-M-42213-2026 6
8. 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
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
KUMUD VERMA
2026.08.05 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRM-M-42213-2026 7particulars 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.
(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
05.08.2026
kv
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
KUMUD VERMA
2026.08.05 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
