Sukhabjeet Singh Alias Surkhab Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52770-2025 Sukhabjeet Singh @ Surkhab Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent Rohit ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent Date of decision: 05.03.2026 CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present:- Mr. Ankit Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-52770-2025.

Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-58518-2025.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

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

This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M-527702025 and CRM-M-58518-2025 as these are arising out of same FIR. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-52770-2025. 2.

These petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No.06 dated 20.01.2025 under Sections 109, 3(5), 61(2), 249 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar.

-23.

The case of the prosecution is that three unknown persons with muffled faces came on a motorcycle and called the son of the complainant namely Rajanpreet Singh outside his house. When Rajanpreet Singh came out into the street, one of the three unknown persons namely Jarmanjit Singh fired a gunshot at him with the intention to kill him, which hit him in the stomach. Thereafter, all the assailants fled away from the spot on their motorcycle. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per the said order, prosecution has examined Rajanpreet Singh-injured as PW-1 and complainant Heera Singh as PW-2 and they have to supported the prosecution version and have been declared as hostile. 5.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had fired at the complainant's son with the intention to kill him. He has filed the custody certificates of the petitioners in the Court today and the same are taken on record. As per custody certificate(s), petitioners are in custody for the last 01 years and 01 day. However, it is submitted that the weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner namely Surkhab Singh. 6.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

7.

After hearing the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact

-3the petitioners are in custody for the last 01 year and 01 day; injured Rajanpreet Singh and complainant namely Heera Singh have not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile; the trial will take a considerable time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served for further incarceration of the petitioners. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners during the pendency of the trial. 8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioners are found indulging in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of their bail. 11.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE 05.03.2026 renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No