Jobanjit Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 02.09.2025
Pronounced on: 22.09.2025 Jobanjit Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 17.04.2024 Cantonment, 307, 323, 506, 34 IPC and District Amritsar, 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act Punjab 1.
The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.
2.
Per paragraph 7 of the bail petition, custody certificate dated 22.07.2025 as well as reply dated 14.07.2025, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No.
FIR No.
Date Offenses Police Station 18.12.2017 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Act and 411/414 IPC Sarai Amanat Khan 19.11.2014 21/22/61/85 of NDPS act Contonment 20.10.2019 22/61/85 of NDPS Act Tarsika 20.04.2024 25/54/59 of Arms Act and 307 IPC Central Sector 17 28.04.2025 25 of Arms Act, 61(2) of BNS SSOC (State Special Operation Cell) 394 IPC Bhikhiwind 21/22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act City Tarn Taran 25/27 of Arms Act and Sections 392, 506 IPC Sadar Tarn Taran
3.
The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:
"....the facts of the aforesaid FIR No. 50 dated 17.04.2024 (supra) are that on 17.04.2024, ASI Ravi Parkash, Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar received information that one Amritpal Singh S/o Surinder Pal Singh was admitted to Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar due to gunshot injury. Thereupon, ASI Ravi Parkash along with accompanying police officials reached Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar for recording statement of the injured Amritpal Singh but he was declared unfit to make statement by the doctor and at that time no eye witness was present there; hence GD No. 17 dated 17.04.2024 was recorded in this respect at P.S. Cantonment, Amritsar. After sometime, ASI Ravi Parkash along with accompanying police officials reached Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar.
There, the Complainant Simratpal Singh S/o Surinder Pal Singh (brother of the injured Amritpal Singh) met him and his statement was recorded by ASI Ravi Parkash, wherein it was alleged that on 16.04.2024 at about 10:30PM, he along with his elder brother Amritpal Singh and cousin Robinjit Singh S/o Manjinder Singh by riding on car made Alto bearing No. PB05-AJ-8009 belonging to Robinjit Singh had gone to Crystal chowk, Amritsar for having meals. They got late having meals and on 17.4.2024 at about 1:45 AM, they all were going in their car towards 22 number Fatak. Robinjit Singh was driving the car, he (complainant) was sitting in front seat and Amritpal Singh was sitting in the back seat of the car. At the time, they reached some ahead from Putlighar chowk then one car Vento, colour white bearing No.
PB02-DU-7158 came from the backside; some persons were riding in that car who struck the side of their car against their (complainant) car and went ahead at high speed. Robinjit Singh tried to stop car of the above said persons then the occupants of the aforesaid car fired gunshots with pistol at them (complainant) with an intention to kill them (complainant) then one gunshot hit on right side of back of his elder brother Amritpal Singh and one gunshot pierced near from his flank and hit on music system of the car. The above said persons fled away from the spot in their car with their weapons while extending threats. They admitted Amritpal Singh to Amandeep Hospital. He (complainant) came to know the name of one of the assailants as Jobanjit Singh (present petitioner) S/o Kulwinder Singh R/o Village Dalla Hawelian, Tarn Taran.
Therefore, based on the aforesaid statement, the present case FIR No.50 dated 17.04.
Cantonment, Amritsar was registered by ASI Ravi Parkash." 4.
The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 5.
The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to following portion of the reply, which read as follows:
"Role of the petitioner
16. That the deponent humbly submits that the present petitioner Jobanjit Singh is the main accused and played the main role in commission of crime. At the time of commission of crime, the present petitioner Jobanjit Singh was having a pistol and he had fired three gunshots from his pistol at the complainant and his accomplices, which hit on back of the injured Amritpal Singh and his injury was declared as dangerous to life." REASONING:
6.
The allegations against the petitioner are serious because there is specific attribution to Jobanjit Singh, who is stated to have fired from his pistol at the victim's car. One shot hit the back side of the person who was sitting on the rear seat of car. Given above, intention of the petitioner was certainly to kill and that is why it is a case of attempt to murder.
7.
Petitioner seeks bail on the grounds of custody of 01 year, 02 months & 10 days as per the custody certificate dated 22.07.2025, which cannot be termed prolonged. Petitioner also seeks bail on parity with Amritpal Singh who was granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2024 passed in CRM-M-460962024. However, no shot was attributed to Amritpal Singh and the Court had granted bail keeping in view submissions made by counsel for the State and had also referred to the previous order in which it was specifically mentioned that no injury was attributed to Amritpal Singh.
8.
A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.
9.
Regarding the delay in the trial, if the trial does not conclude within one year of the petitioner's custody, and the delay is not attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner may apply for bail before the trial Court. The Court shall not be influenced by the dismissal of bail on merits or by the criminal history and shall decide it on changed circumstances and the prolonged trial.
10.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 11.
Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 22.09.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:
No.