Juvraj Singh @ Jaggu @ Yuvi v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.108 Date of Decision: 20.02.2026 JUVRAJ SINGH @ JAGGU @ YUVI

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Malkiat S. Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) CRM-7769-2026 The present application has been filed to place on record the amended petition, as Section 11 of the BNS was inadvertently mentioned instead of Section 111 of the BNS.

In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed, and the amended petition is taken on record. Main case 1.

This is the first petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking concession of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 11, dated 30.01.2025, registered under Sections 111(3) and 113 of the BNS, Sections 25(6) and 25(7) read with Section 54/59 of the Arms Act, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS (added later), at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran.

2.

The prosecution case, as gathered from the record, is that the present FIR was registered on the basis of a secret information received by the Investigating Officer to the effect that the accused/applicant, along with other co-accused, had formed an organized gang involved in illegally importing arms and explosives from Pakistan and indulging in serious criminal activities. It was alleged that the said gang used to threaten traders and affluent persons, demand ransom, and commit offences such as robbery, extortion, firing at houses, and other violent acts with the use of illegal weapons. On the basis of the said information, the police initiated proceedings and the present case was registered against the accused and other co-accused.

3.

It is further the case of the prosecution that the role attributed to the accused is not isolated but forms part of a larger criminal conspiracy carried out by the gang, and that the allegations against him are grave and serious in nature. The record also reflects that bail applications of certain coaccused had already been dismissed earlier by the learned predecessor Court as well as by this Court.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, no specific injury or overt act has been attributed to him, and he has been in custody since 09.05.2025.

5.

Considering the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. It is not disputed that similarly placed co-accused have already been granted bail.

The petitioner is in custody since 09.05.2025. The charges in the present case are yet to be framed and, therefore, the conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable period of time. No specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner and the allegations attracting Section 111(3) BNS are matters of evidence which shall be tested during trial. In such circumstances, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. 6.

Accordingly, the present regular bail application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to the condition that he shall join the proceedings as and when required and shall not influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (MANDEEP PANNU) 20.02.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No