Kundan Kumar v. State Of Punjab
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33712-2026 (O&M).
Date of decision: 17.06.2026.
KUNDAN KUMAR
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, (Through Video Conference) for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.14 dated 20.01.2026, under Section(s) 310(4) and 310(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana (Rural), Punjab.
-2Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the ruqa submitted by ASI Narinder Kumar of Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural. As per the prosecution case, on the relevant day, ASI Narinder Kumar, along with other police officials, was present at Main Mullanpur Chowk in connection with patrolling duty and surveillance of suspicious persons. During patrolling, a secret informer approached the police party and furnished information that Karamjit Singh son of Jarnail Singh, resident of Patti Boora, Dakha, along with Kundan Kumar son of Subot Paswan, Sanjay Kumar son of Siya Ram, Mohd. Sameer Sheikh son of Mohd. Hussain, Shiva Chaudhary son of Manoj Chaudhary and Akash Deep Singh son of Hardeep Singh, were assembled in a vacant plot situated opposite Gurmeet Bhawan.
It was alleged that the aforesaid persons were armed with deadly weapons and were planning to commit a robbery/dacoity at an ATM. The informer further disclosed that Karamjit Singh was involved in several criminal cases and had associated the other accused with him for the purpose of committing offences. The information was stated to be specific and reliable, whereupon the police party proceeded to take action. On the basis of the aforesaid information preparation for commission of dacoity and possession of deadly weapons for that purpose, a ruqa was sent to the police station, leading to registration of the present FIR against the aforesaid accused persons under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Thereafter, investigation was commenced in accordance with law.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon order dated 18.05.2026 passed in CRM-M-26763-2026 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide which co-accused namely Sanjay Kumar has already
-3been granted regular bail. He submits that trial Court has wrongly observed that 'iron sword' was recovered from the petitioner whereas only a wooden stick was recovered from the petitioner. He submits that after completion of investigation final report has been filed in the Court and the conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time. He further submits that the criminal has clean antecedents and is in custody since 20.01.2026 and has already undergone an actual custody for a period of about than 05 months and as such, he be released on regular bail.
State counsel, on the other hand, does not dispute the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner and that case of the petitioner would be at par with the co-accused to whom concession of regular bail has already been granted by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2026 passed in CRM-M-26763-20266.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, the stage of the trial and the fact that the co-accused namely Sanjay Kumar has already been granted regular bail by this Court order dated 18.05.2026 passed in CRM-M-26763-2026, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.
The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an
-4expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.
June 17, 2026.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No