Sukhdeep Singh And Another v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.03.2026 SUKHDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER ... PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S.Pandher, Asst.A.G.Punjab.

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

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 261 dated 26.11.2023 under Sections379-B(2), 304, 411 and 201 IPC registered at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, along with his wife and son, was travelling on a motorcycle from village Dhanoye towards village Rampura Muradpura. At about 05:45 PM, when they reached near Army Gate No. 1 on the Bye-pass, close to Dera Baba Darshan Singh Kulli Wale, Ghanupur Kale, three young men came from behind on a black Splendor motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-02-EJ-2560 and attempted to snatch the purse of the complainant's wife. When she resisted, the assailants forcibly snatched the purse, as a result of which she fell onto the road and sustained a

-2head injury, which subsequently resulted in her death. Thereafter, the assailants fled from the spot with the stolen purse.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the FIR was registered after an unexplained delay of 10 days. He further submits that although the complainant has allegedly identified the petitioners on his own, no test identification parade was conducted. It is also submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 26.11.2023. 4.

On the other hand, ld. State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners for the grant of regular bail on the ground that the petitioners are involved in a heinous crime which had resulted into death of a young lady. He has filed the custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. He further submits that the petitioners are in custody for the last 02 years 03 months and 14 days and are not involved in any other case. He further submits that out of 23 cited prosecution witnesses only 10 witnesses have been examined so far.

5.

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

6.

After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that the petitioner are in custody for the last 02 years 03 months and 14 days; are not involved in any other case; out of 23 cited prosecution witnesses only 10 witnesses have been examined so far and that the trial is moving at a snail's pace, this Court is of the view that further detention of the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose.

-37.

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. 8.

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

9.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioners are found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of their bail. 17.03.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No