Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sagar Laias Bobby Malhotra vs State Of Punjab on 12 May, 2026
CRM-M-13641-2025 and connected matter -1
131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13641-2025
Date of Decision:12.05.2026
Sagar @ Bobby Malhotra ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(ii) CRM-M-58034-2025
Amanpreet Singh @ Rinka ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate for
the petitioner in CRM-M-13641-2025.
Ms. Rajvinder Kaur Sohal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-58034-2025.
Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)
1. This order shall dispose off two bail petitions i.e
CRM-M-13641-2025 titled as “Sagar @ Bobby Malhotra Vs. State of Punjab“
and CRM-M-58034-2025 titled as “Amanpreet Singh @ Rinka Vs. State of
Punjab“, whereby, the petitioners have prayed for the grant of regular bail to
them in case arising out of FIR No.264, dated 03.06.2018, registered under
Sections 302,120-B, 148,149 of IPC and Section 25,27 of Arms Act and 201
and 473 of IPC added later on, Police Station Civil Lines, District Police
Commissionerate, Amritsar (Annexure P-1).
HITESH
2026.05.15 12:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-13641-2025 and connected matter -2
2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the
statement made by Sukhbir Singh @ Sonu and the same has been reproduced
below:-
“Statement of Sukhbir Singh alias Sonu son of Sh. Surjit Singh,
caste Prajapat, resident of H.No.138, Kot Mahna Singh, Tarn
Taran Road, Amritsar, aged about 37 years, mobile No.99143-
21751. It is stated that I am the resident of the above address and
I am running the business of transport. We are five brothers and
sisters, out of them, two are the sisters and three brothers. My
elder brother Gurdeep Singh Pehalwan, who is a councillor from
Ward No.50, Amritsar and is residing in H.No.902/6, Haveli
Roorh Singh, near Telephone Exchange, Katra Sher Singh,
Amritsar. About 6-7 years ago, a quarrel had taken place between
my brother Gurdeep Singh and Ravneet Singh alias Sonu Mota,
resident of Chowk Tahli Wala, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar. By
virtue of this quarrel, the enmity of Ravneet Singh alias Sonu Mota
with my brother Gurdeep Singh had increased and Sonu Mota had
given threats many times to my brother Gurdeep Singh to kill him.
Due to Sonu Mota, the gangster Jagdeep Singh alias Jaggu
resident of Bhagwanpuria, district Gurdaspur, confined in jail,
Sonu Kangla, resident of Gujjarpura, Bobby Malhotra, resident of
Gujjarpura, Amritsar and their other accomplices including Rajat
Malhotra alias Karan Masti resident of Majith Mandi, Amanpreet
Singh alias Rinka, resident of Fateh Singh colony, Angrej Singh
resident of Fateh Singh colony, and Arun Chhurimar, resident of
Gujjarpura, who have been released from jail, started keeping
enmity with my brother Gurdeep Singh. They had given threats on
Facebook and other social media to kill my brother, Gurdeep
Singh. All these persons are doing illegal activities at the instance
of Jaggu Bhagwanpuria. We all three brothers are wrestlers since
childhood. On 02.06.2018, in the evening, I and my elder brotherHITESH
2026.05.15 12:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-13641-2025 and connected matter -3Gurdeep Singh and Gulshan Kumar, friend of my brother Gurdeep
Singh, as a daily routine had gone to Akhara Golbagh, Amritsar
for doing exercise and after the exercise, after taking bath and
changing he clothes, we were about to proceed for our house. At
about 7.00 PM, 6-7 persons came in through the gate of the
Akhara very quickly. They were carrying pistols in their hands.
Out of them, I identified Rajat Malhotra alias Karan Masti, Angrej
Singh, Amanpreet Singh alias Rinka and Arun Chhurimar. Upon
coming there, they started firing bullets from their pistols on my
brother Gurdeep Singh, who was standing in the Akhara. By virtue
of the hitting of bullets, my brother Gurdeep Singh fell down on the
ground and we hide ourselves behind the vehicles parked inside
the Akhara. All of them were raising lalkara that today we have
murdered the enemy of our friend Ravneet Singh Sonu Mota,
Jaggu Bhagwanpuria and Sonu Kangla and Bobby Malhotra and
all these persons fled on the motorcycles, which were parked
outside. While their fleeing, I noted down the number of one
motorcycle Pulsar, colour black as PB-02-BK-7324. Out of these
attackers, one had worn yellow colour Kurta Pyjama and had tied
a turban, one had worn grey colour Kurta Pyjama and had tied a
turban and the remaining were Hindus. The above persons, at the
instance of Sonu Mota, Jaggu Bhagwanpuria, Sonu Kangla and
Bobby Malhotra, under a conspiracy, in connivance with each
other, had fired gun-shots to my brother Gurdeep Singh. I and
Gulshan Kumar with the help of others, took my brother Gurdeep
Singh to Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar in an injured condition,
where the doctors declared my brother Gurdeep Singh as dead.
But we took our brother Gurdeep Singh to Fortis Hospital,
Amritsar, where also, the doctors declared him dead. The above
persons have murdered my brother Gurdeep Singh. Legal action
be taken against them, I have got my statement recorded to you.
Sd/- Sukhbir Singh, attested, Sd/-Sukhbir Singh”.
HITESH
2026.05.15 12:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-13641-2025 and connected matter -4
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sagar @
Bobby Malhotra (petitioner in CRM-M-13641-2025) submits that the F.I.R was
lodged against the petitioner by wrongly alleging that the petitioner is a well
known gangster and had enmity with Gurdeep Singh, brother of the
complainant for the last 6/7 years and they had killed Gurdeep Singh by firing
shots on him. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not
present at the place of occurrence and four other persons had fired shots on the
deceased. There was no motive also on the part of the petitioner to commit the
crime. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 12.07.2015
and challan was presented against him on 23.08.2018 and thereafter, charge was
framed against him on 22.08.2019. He further submits that the petitioner has
already spent such a long incarceration of several years and the trial may not
conclude in near future. Consequently, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on
bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Amanpreet Singh @ Rinka (petitioner in CRM-M-58034-2025) submits that the
petitioner has been named by levelling general and omnibus allegations. It has
been stated that the gunshots were fired by his co-accused and no specific
attribution to the petitioner was there. Apart from that, there was no substantive
evidence or independent eye witness account with the prosecution to connect
him with the alleged crime. Even, during, the course of investigation, the
petitioner was arrested on 12.07.2018 and challan has been presented against
him on 23.12.2018. Also, the trial has not concluded before the Trial Court
inspite of repeated directions by this Court.
HITESH
2026.05.15 12:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-13641-2025 and connected matter -5
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed
the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) on the ground that
both the petitioners are well known gangsters of the State and do not deserve
the concession of bail from this Court. As per him, the following cases are
pending for trial against Sagar @ Bobby Malhotra (petitioner in CRM-M-
13641-2025):-
Sr. No. FIR No. and Date Under Sections Police Station
1 120/10.11.2015 395,148,149,120-B City Batala
216-A IPC 25-54-
59 ArmsACT
2 110/30.04.2016 364,302,148,149, Sultanwind
120-B IPC 25/27
ArmsACT
3 113/04.05.2016 302,307,148,149, Sultanwind
120-B IPC
25/54/59 Arms
ACT
4 166/29.10.2015 307,336,148,149 ofC. Division,
IPC Amritsar
5 171/12.11.2015 307,336,148,149 ofC. Division,
IPC Amritsar
6 72/09.02.2016 365,379-B,148,149 Civil Lines
of IPC, 25-54-59 of
Arms Act
7 66/16.09.2018 450,395,397,307,41D. Division
2,379,411 of IPC
and 25 of Arms Act
8 03/11.02.2024 353,186,506,34 ofCantt. Bhatinda
IPC and 2-A of
Prison ActApart from that, the petitioner has been convicted in the following cases:-
Sr. No. FIR No. and Date Under Sections Police Station
1. 12/05.02.2016 307/224/225/148/ Sadar S.B.S
149/120B IPC Nagar
25-27-54-59 Arms
HITESH
2026.05.15 12:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-13641-2025 and connected matter -6Act
2. 27/24.02.2017 420 IPC 42/52 Gate Hakima
PrisonACT
3. 113/12.07.2015 307/34 IPC, 25- C. Division
54-59 Arms Act
4. 122/25.09.2013 21/22/61/85 of C. Division
NDPS Act
5. 37/08.06.2015 223,224,225,148, Khalchian
149 of IPC and
25/54/59 of Arms
Act
6. 145/06.05.2015 307,37,353,186 of Civil Lines
IPC and 25/54/59
of Arms Act
7. 22/15.09.2017 364,382,386,387,2 SSOC (State
12,216216- Special Operation
A,414,416,120-B Cell)
of IPC, 21/25/29
of NDPS Act and
25 of Arms Act
8. 236/20.08.2020 52-A Prison Act City Ferozepore
9. 248/08.09.2020 52-A Prison Act City Ferozepore
10. 163/17.05.2020 52-A Prison Act City Ferozepore
11. 189/11.06.2020 52-A Prison Act City Ferozepore
12. 119/27.03.2020 52-A Prison Act City Ferozepore
13. 295/13.11.2020 52-A Prison Act City Ferozepore
14. 20/03.02.2022 323,341 of IPC, Cantt. Bhatinda
52-A Prison Act
15. 04/12.01.2025 25/54/59 of Arms Phul
Act
Apart from that, the petitioner was also involved in the following cases, in
which he has been acquitted:-
HITESH
2026.05.15 12:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-13641-2025 and connected matter -7
Sr. No. FIR No. and Date Under Sections Police Station
2. 06/17.08.2016 367,148,149 of State Special
IPC and 25/27 of Operation Cell
Arms Act
3. 127/10.08.2016 364,302,148,149 Sadar Tarn Taran
of IPC and
25/54/59 of Arms
Act
4. 208/08.11.2016 302,307,148,149 C-Division
of IPC
5. 23/04.02.2016 307 of IPC and Sultanwind
25/54/59 of Arms
Act
6. 38/28.03.2015 307 of IPC C. Division
7. 187/25.09.2014 307 of IPC C. Division
8. 137/24.08.2015 307,148,149 of C. Division
IPC
9. 11/12.01.2016 307/34 of IPC C. Division
10. 35/26.04.2011 452,323,427,506 C. Division
of IPC
11. 264/23.10.2014 302,304,34 of IPC Sultanwind
and 25/54/59 of
Arms Act
12. 301/31.10.2014 18-20-21-22-61- Cantonment,
85 of NDPS Act, Amritsar
411,414,489-A of
IPC and 25-54-59
of Arms Act, 14 of
Foreign Act
13. 172/06.12.2017 379,411 of IPC,25 C. Division
of Arms Act
14. 74/07.04.2018 42,52-A Jail Act City Faridkot
15. 98/21.09.2016 395 of IPC Bullowal
16. 115/01.01.2013 323,324 of IPC C. Division
HITESH
2026.05.15 12:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-13641-2025 and connected matter -8
17. 63/06.04.2016 392,454 of IPC Kamboh
and 25/54/59 of
Arms Act
18. 162/02.10.2018 353,186,506,34 of Muktsar Sadar
IPC and 45 Act
19. 67/01.01.2015 21-27-A,29/61/85 Kathunangal
of NDPS Act,
25/54/59 of Arms
Act, 307/472 of
IPC
20. 46/06.03.2018 392,379-B,395 of Maqsudan
IPC and
21/22/61/85 of
NDPS Act and
25/54/59 of Arms
Act
21. 146/07.11.2014 399,402,120-B of Ghoman
IPC
22. 177/30.09.2018 21-22-61-85 of Islamabad
NDPS Act
23. 222/13.11.2014 307,506,452,148,1 C. Division
49 of IPC and 25
of Arms Act
24. 86/13.06.2016 379-B of IPC, 25 Beas
of Arms Act
25. 05/04.01.2021 52-A of Prison Act City Ferozepore
26. 117/26.11.2022 399,402 of IPC, 25 City Morinda
of Arms Act
27. 27/2021 21/22 of NDPS Cantt. Bhatinda
Act and 52,52-A
of Prison Act
28. 24/15.03.2025 304 (1) of B.N.S Sultanwind
29. 61/25.03.2022 148,149,307,323, Amloh
506 of IPCStill further, production warrants have been issued against the petitioner in the
following one case:-
HITESH
2026.05.15 12:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-13641-2025 and connected matter -9
Sr. No. FIR No. and Date Under Sections Police Station
1. 139/20.04.2020 52-A Prison Act City Ferozepore
6. The following cases are pending for trial against Amanpreet Singh
@ Rinka (petitioner in CRM-M-58034-2025):-
Sr. No. FIR No. and Date Under Sections Police Station
1. 201/05.11.2018 307,353,427,212, Islamabad
216,34 of IPC
2. 260/20.10.2017 307 of IPC, E.Division
25/54/59 of Arms
Act
3. 66/16.09.2018 395,397,307,412 D. Division
of IPC and
25/54/59 of Arms
Act
4. 68/11.05.2018 392,394,397,148,1 E. Division
49 of IPC and
25/54/59 of Arms
Act
5. 232/03.09.2019 307,120- Islamabad
B,506,148,149 of
IPC and 52-A of
Prison Act
6. 95/21.06.2019 25-54-59 of Arms Gate Hakima
Act, 21-22-61-85
of NDPS Act
7. 184/31.07.2019 42/52-A of Prison Islamabad
Act
8. 182/22.04.2020 52 of Prison Act, Islamabad
324 of IPC
9. 159/13.04.2020 42/52-A of Prison Islamabad
Act
10. 142/30.03.2020 42/52-A of Prison Islamabad
ActHITESH
2026.05.15 12:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-13641-2025 and connected matter -10
11. 98/07.03.2020 42/52-A of Prison Islamabad
Act
12. 50/22.07.2024 109(1), 115(2), Sandaur
117(2), 126(2),
61(2) of B.N.SThe petitioner has been convicted in the following case:-
Sr. No. FIR No. and Date Under Sections Police Station
1. 27/11.05.2018 336/34 of IPC, 25- D.Division
54-59 of Arms ActApart from that, the petitioner was also involved in the following cases, in
which he has been acquitted:-
Sr. No. FIR No. and Date Under Sections Police Station
1. 36/03.03.2021 21-C,/25/61/85 of STF, Amritsar
NDPS Act
2. 108/25.08.2022 25/54/59 of Arms Maqsudan
Act
3. 34/02.03.2025 25/54/59 of Arms Gate Hakima
Act
4. 175/10.07.2025 25,27,54,59 of Gate Hakima
Arms Act, 109 of
B.N.SStill further, production warrants have been issued against the petitioner in the
followings cases:-
Sr. No. FIR No. and Date Under Sections Police Station
1. 92/26.05.2016 399,402 of IPC, Cantonment,
25-27-54-59 of Amritsar
Arms Act, 20-25-
29-61-85 of NDPS
Act
HITESH
2026.05.15 12:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-13641-2025 and connected matter -11
2. 180/26.08.2018 365,384,392,244,1 Division No.7
15,120-B of IPC Jalandhar
and 25 of Arms
Act
3. 250/30.05.2020 42/52-A of Prison Islamabad
Act
4. 328/06.10.2022 52-A of Prison Act Kotwali
Kapurthala
5. 300/15.12.2021 52 Prison Act Kotwali
Kapurthala
6. 170/2022 52-A of Prison Act Kotwali
Kapurthala
7. 438/29.09.2020 52-A of Prison Act Islamabad
8. 94/2021 42,52-A of Prison Islamabad
Act
9. 187/2021 42,52-A of Prison Islamabad
Act
10. 194/06.06.2023 42,52-A of Prison Islamabad
Act
11. 461/2022 52-A of Prison Act Kotwali
Kapurthala
12. 166/28.04.2025 42,52-A of Prison City Faridkot
Act
Learned State counsel submits that both the petitioners are involved in several
criminal activities in the State of Punjab and keeping in view the seriousness of
the allegations also, the petitions are liable to be dismissed by this Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record carefully.
8. Undoubtedly, the petitioners in both the petitions are continuing in
custody for a very long period, however, the Court cannot overlook the role
played by the petitioners in the present crime. Apart from that, it is also
HITESH
2026.05.15 12:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-13641-2025 and connected matter -12
apparent from the submissions made by learned State counsel that both the
petitioners are hardcore criminals and notorious criminals of State of Punjab,
and are involved in several criminal cases. It is also established from the
submissions made by learned State counsel that in majority of the cases, the
witnesses are not even able to depose against them and due to this, both the
petitioners are acquitted in criminal trials.
9. Thus, the apprehensions expressed by learned State counsel that
the petitioners may influence the witnesses of the prosecution or may tamper
with the evidence, seems to be well founded and genuine.
10. Thus, keeping in view the gravity of the offence, number of cases
pending against the petitioners and chances of tampering with the prosecution
evidence, both petitions deserves to be dismissed by this Court.
11. Ordered accordingly.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
12.05.2026 JUDGE
hitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
HITESH
2026.05.15 12:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
