Satnam Singh Alias Tittu v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.109+227 Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 SATNAM SINGH ALIAS TITTU

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) CRM-14261-2026 The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking to place on record the zimni order and the charge sheet dated 05.08.2024 as Annexures P-15 and P-16.

In view of the submissions made in the application, the same is allowed, and the said documents are taken on record. Main case 1.

This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 499 dated 19.09.2023, registered under Sections 394, 397 IPC (corresponding to Sections 309(6), 311 of the BNS, 2023) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, as well as Sections 201, 302, 379, 395, 396, 411 IPC (corresponding to Sections 238, 103, 303(2), 310(2), 310(3), 317(2) of the

BNS, 2023) and Sections 25(1B)(a) & 29 of the Arms Act (added later on), at Police Station Model Town, District Rewari, during the pendency of the trial.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with coaccused allegedly hatched a criminal conspiracy and, in furtherance thereof, fired upon the complainant/injured Vishal Sharma and snatched his bag containing a cash amount of approximately ₹6 lakhs. It is alleged that due to the injuries sustained in the said incident, Vishal Sharma subsequently succumbed during treatment on 19.09.2023 at Medanta Hospital, Gurugram. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been in custody since 21.09.2023. It is submitted that out of 40 cited prosecution witnesses, only 7 witnesses have been examined so far and the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. It is further argued that no specific injury has been attributed to the present petitioner and there is no direct evidence connecting him with the alleged offence.

It is further contended that as per the case of the prosecution itself, the main role has been attributed to coaccused Baldev Singh, who has been charged for the offences under Sections 302, 395, 396, 397, 411 IPC and relevant provisions of the Arms Act, whereas the present petitioner, namely Sukhnam Singh, has been chargesheeted under Sections 395, 396, 397, 411 and 379 IPC, thereby indicating a lesser and distinguishable role. Learned counsel further submits that one of the co-accused, namely Charan Singh, has already been granted the concession of bail by this Hon'ble Court, and therefore, the case of the present petitioner is on parity with the said co-accused.

the said parity and the period of custody already undergone, it is prayed that the petitioner be also released on regular bail. 4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and submitted that serious and grave allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is one of the main accused, who, in connivance with co-accused, hatched a criminal conspiracy and actively participated in the commission of the offence, wherein the victim was fired upon and robbed of a substantial amount. It is further submitted that a part of the looted amount has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, which clearly establishes his involvement in the crime. It is further contended that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for a period of two years, six months and eleven days.

It is also submitted that out of 41 prosecution witnesses, 7 witnesses have already been examined and thus, the trial is progressing and cannot be said to be moving at a slow pace. It is further argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may influence the prosecution witnesses or flee from justice. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner are of a very serious nature. The petitioner has been attributed a specific and active role in the commission of the offence, wherein he, along with co-accused, not only participated in the criminal conspiracy but also in the act of firing upon the victim and robbing him, which ultimately resulted in the death of the victim. The recovery of part of the looted amount from the petitioner

further strengthens the case of the prosecution at this stage. It is also not in dispute that the trial is already underway and out of 41 witnesses, 7 witnesses have been examined, which indicates that the proceedings are progressing.

6.

Considering the gravity of the offence, the manner in which the crime has been committed, and the specific role attributed to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for grant of regular bail is made out at this stage.

7.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 8.

However, 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) 07.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No