Ravinderjit Singh Alias Ricky v. State Of Punjab

(118)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 Ravinderjit Singh @ Ricky ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Himani Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Japjit S. Johal, Advocate for complainant.

**** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.21 dated 05.04.2025 under Sections 333, 109, 324(4) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 (Section 21 of NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur.

2.

The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Sukhjit Singh and reads as under:- "Statement of Sukhjit Singh son of Sampuran Singh, resident of Warraich, Police Station Kahnuwan, aged about 59 years, mobile number 98726-66490. Stated that I am resident of abovesaid address and I am retired E.T.O. from Excise Department and is present Sarpanch of the village. Today on 05.04.2025, I went outside for my personal work. My wife Rajwinder Kaur who was alone in the house

told me telephonically that at about 11.02 AM, 2 youngsters with muffled faces came on motorcycles and while entering our house fired two shots with an intention to kill us towards our house. One fire hit on sofa of our dining by breaking down the glass of dinning room window. On coming to this incident, I came to my house, before this I received a blank call. I was coming to police station you met, I got recorded my statement before you, heard and is correct. Legal action may kindly be taken against above unidentified persons. Sd/- Sukhjit Singh attested Sd/- Nirmal Singh ASI Police Station Kahnuwan dated 05.04.2025." 3.

Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the supplementary statement of the complainant-Sukhjit Singh was recorded wherein he named Ravinderjit Singh (petitioner) and Ajay Pal Singh. 4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The recovery has been planted upon him. Be that as it may, he has been operated upon for a brain tumor and requires constant medical care. He was granted interim bail which concession has not been misused. As none of the 19 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of regular bail.

5.

The learned counsel for the State and the counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, contend that the petitioner is one of the main accused. On his arrest, 04 pistols and 258 grams of heroin was recovered from him. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession as prayed for. He,

however, concedes that the petitioner has been operated upon for a brain tumor and does have a medical condition.

6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7.

A Medical Board was constituted to examine the petitioner. The report of the said Board has been handed over in Court (Mark 'X'). The same reads as under:- POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, CHANDIGARH Medical Board Report In pursuance of the orders received from Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in CRM-M-69418-2025 (O&M) and CRM-M-6668- 2026 case tiited as Ravinderjit Singh alias Ricky vs State of Punjab for medical examination of Ravinderjit Singh, a medical board consisting of following doctors was constituted vide letter no. EV (9) PGI-MS/MA- 63/2026 dated 07.04.2026.

1 Prof. Parvin Salunke, Department of Neurosurgery- Chairman.

2. Dr. Sahil Mehta, Department of Neurology-Member.

3. Dr. Anuj Prabhakar, Department of Radiodiagnosis-Member.

4. Dr. Sumit Yadav, Department of Hospital Administration- Convener. Patient Mr. Ravinderjit Singh was brought to PGIMER, Chandigarh by S.I. Rachhpal Singh on 16.04.2026. Patient (CR. No. 202602308291) was examined by the board members and as per the records produced before the medical board, the board members are of the opinion that Mr. Ravinderjit Singh is an operated case of brain tumor with seizures. Patient requires optimization of medication for seizure management and requires regular follow-up with local Neurologist and Neurosurgeon. Dr. Sumit Yadav Dr. Anuj Pohakar Member Dr. Sahil Mehta Convener Member Member Prof. Parvin Salunke Chairperson

8.

Apparently, the petitioner was operated upon for a brain tumor with seizures and requires medication and seizure management treatment along with regular follow-ups with a Neurologist and Neurosurgeon. 9.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the medical condition of the petitioner, his further incarceration is not required particularly, when there is no allegation of him having misused the concession of interim bail granted to him earlier. 10.

Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Ravinderjit Singh is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 11.

The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other case/crime other than the case(s) referred to in this order.

12.

If any attempt whatsoever is made by the petitioner and/or his family members/friends to contact/threaten/intimidate any of the witnesses of the present occurrence, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted vide this order. 13.

In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from Trial without sufficient cause. 14.

The petition stands disposed of.

15.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE April 20, 2026 Vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable :- Yes/No