Amarjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.311 Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 AMARJIT SINGH

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Ankit Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. N.S. Mahal, DAG, Punjab.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

This is the second petition under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 60 dated 13.06.2025, registered under Sections 308(2) and 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 at Police Station Lambran, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

2.

As per the contents of the FIR, the same was registered on the statement of the complainant Surinder Singh, who stated that he has been running a liquor Ahata and his son Manveer Singh, aged about 22 years, came into contact with the present petitioner Amarjit Singh, who is alleged to be involved in the intoxication trade. It has been alleged that the petitioner used to threaten the son of the complainant and, under such threats, extorted money and gold ornaments amounting to more than ₹1 lakh, with further

threats of implicating him in false drug cases. It was further alleged that the mobile phone of the complainant's son had been hacked by the petitioner. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the matter has been compromised with the complainant and that the petitioner is in custody for the last approximately nine months, as he is in custody since 03.07.2025, and since the matter has been compromised, therefore, he be released on bail.

4.

Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and submits that he has no objection if the petitioner is released on bail as the matter has been compromised with the complainant. 5.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail by submitting that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record of the case with his assistance. In view of the fact that the matter has been amicably compromised between the parties, the petitioner has been in custody since 03.07.2025, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. 7.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

However, it is clarified that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 9.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 20.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No