Arjun Kumar v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-14217-2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14217-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.05.2026 Arjun Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Sandeep Kumar and Mr. Aakash Rana, Advocates for the petitioner 




  ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0271 dated 14.09.2024, registered under Sections 115(2), 103(1), 109, 191(3) and 190 BNS (Section 238 of BNS added later on) at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 1 year and about 8 months. He was neither named in the FIR nor even in the supplementary statement of the complainant, which was made after 3 days, wherein though one co-accused Jaydeep was implicated with allegations of beating the deceased with sticks and swords, who has since been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2026, Annexure P-3. The name of the petitioner surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Ravi Malik.

CRM-M-14217-2026 (O&M) 2 Charges have been framed on 14.11.2025, however, out of 25 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. He is is not involved in any other case. 3.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioner in his disclosure statement. However, learned State counsel is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, co-accused having been granted bail and the petitioner being not involved in any other case. 5.

Heard.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 7 months and 27 days; not involved in any other case; co-accused is on bail; charges were framed on 14.11.2025, however, prosecution evidence is yet to commence, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

7.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

8.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

9.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would

CRM-M-14217-2026 (O&M) 3 proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 21.05.2026 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No