← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/48453/2024allowed

Jobanpreet Singh Alias Joban v. State Of Punjab

2025-07-24Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal2 pages

CRM-M-48453 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48453 of 2024 Date of decision: 24.07.2025 Jobanpreet Singh alias Joban

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 

Present:

Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.  

    **** 

 , J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in case FIR No.27 dated 23.03.2022, under Sections 302, 148, 149, 120B of IPC 1860, registered at Police Station Majitha, Amritsar Rural, District Amritsar.

2.

As per prosecution version, petitioner along with 9 co-accused was apprehended for causing death to one Karamjit Singh. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and in fact, he was standing outside the place of occurrence. The petitioner was 17 years old at the time of incident and has undergone the sentence for a period of 3 years and 26 days as under trial. Till date, trial has yet to commence and out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, therefore, petitioner be released on regular bail.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

 

   , accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer ANIL KUMAR 2025.07.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-48453 of 2024 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for 03 years and 26 days. However, the learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is involved in some other cases as well. 6.

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

6.

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner and the fact that trial has yet to commence and out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined; the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 8.

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.

9.

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

( ) 

 24.07.2025 anil Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No ANIL KUMAR 2025.07.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document