← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/32586/2026allowed

Akashdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

2026-07-03Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal4 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 03.07.2026 AKASHDEEP SINGH ... PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab.

*** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0196 dated 26.11.2022 under Sections 364 of IPC (now Section 140(1) of BNS, 2023), offence under Sections 364-A/120-B of IPC (now Section 140(2)/61(2) of BNS, 2023) were added and offence under Section 364 of IPC (now Section 140(1) of BNS) was deleted vide DDR No. 26 dated 12.12.2022, offence under Sections 302, 201 IPC (now Section 103(1)/238 of BNS, 2023) were added vide DDR No.32 dated 17.12.2022 and Section 212/216 of IPC (now Sections 249/253 of BNS, 2023) were added vide DDR No.29 dated 15.09.2023 was registered at Police Station, Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, kidnapped Harman (son of the complainant) who had gone to the

-2school ground to watch games and thereafter, murdered him for ransom of Rs.30 lakhs.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the FIR was registered against unknown persons and the role attributed to the petitioner is that he had accompanied co-accused Deepak, Akashdeep Singh, Navjot Singh @ Jyoti, Simarjeet Singh @ Simra and Manjeet Singh, who collected the ransom money. It is further submitted that initially, the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was arraigned as an accused after of delay of 13 days on the supplementary statement of one Jagjit Singh @ Nikku (brother of the complainant). Learned counsel further submits that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and the said witness Jagjit Singh @ Nikku has been given up and, apart from the said statement, there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 03 years, 05 months and 11 days and coaccused(s), namely, Manjeet Singh @ Manjit Singh, Simarjit Singh @ Simra @ Simarjeet Singh and Gursharan Singh @ Yadwinder Singh have already been granted bail by this Court in CRM-M-49805-2025, CRM-M-27690-2025 & CRM-M-23685-2026 on 11.03.2026, 06.08.2025 & 04.05.2026 (Annexures P-3 to P-5 respectively). He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as out of total 44 cited prosecution witnesses, only 05 PWs have been examined and 02 PWs have been given up.

4.

Notice of motion.

-35.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 03 years, 05 months and 11 days. He, upon instructions, submits that out of total 44 cited prosecution witnesses, only 05 PWs have been examined and 02 PWs have been given up. 6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 03 years, 05 months and 11 days, co-accused(s) have already been granted bail and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as out of total 44 cited prosecution witnesses, only 05 PWs have been examined and 02 PWs have been given up, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. 8.

Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar @ Banu versus State of Punjab, bearing Criminal Appeal No.1341/2026 (arising out of SLP(Cri.) No.18775/2025), decided on 13.03.2026, wherein it has been categorically held that where the accused has remained in custody for a considerable period and the trial has not even commenced, or is not likely to conclude in the near future, therefore, continued incarceration would amount to punishment without trial. In such

-4circumstances, further detention pending trial is not necessary and the accused is entitled to be released on bail.

9.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

10.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) July 03, 2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No