Allowed¶25

Rajdeep Singh @ Raja v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC19 May 2025CRM-M/15056/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-15056-2025; Rajdeep Singh @ Raja v. State of Punjab; Justice Manisha Batra; regular bail; Section 483 BNSS; FIR No. 136 dated 23.10.2024 PS Dera Baba Nanak, District Batala, Gurdaspur; BNS Sections 109, 111, 308(4), 111(5), 112; Arms Act Section 25; organized crime/extortion gang of Jeewan @ Fozi; reiki of complainant Randeep Singh; nomination on disclosure statement of co-accused Anmoldeep Singh; custody since 03.11.2024; parity with co-accused Baljit Singh, Balbir Singh, Manjit Kaur, Kamaljeet Singh, Navtej Singh; bail allowed on 19.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned; pending application(s), if any, rendered infructuous. ¶25

Rajdeep Singh @ Raja Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Rajdeep Singh @ Raja, arraigned in FIR No. 136 dated 23.10.2024, Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, District Batala, Gurdaspur (Sections 109, 111, 308(4) BNS 2023, with 111(5) and 112 added later, and Section 25 Arms Act, 1959), deserves to be released on regular bail under Section 483 BNSS.

¶12

Court's answer

Considering the nature of allegations, the petitioner's incarceration since 03.11.2024, his lack of criminal antecedents, the time the trial would take, and that co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail; no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody any longer.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶25

Key takeaways

The observations made in the judgment shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail granted (P&H HC, CRM-M-15056-2025, decided 19.05.2025, Manisha Batra, J.) under Section 483 BNSS to Rajdeep Singh @ Raja, accused in FIR No. 136 dated 23.10.2024, P.S. Dera Baba Nanak, District Batala, Gurdaspur, under Sections 109, 111 and 308(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 111(5) and 112 added later) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, in a case of attempted murder of complainant Randeep Singh linked to an alleged extortion gang headed by Jeewan @ Fozi; petitioner nominated on the disclosure statement of co-accused Anmoldeep Singh and in custody since 03.11.2024. Bail allowed on the ground of period of incarceration, absence of criminal antecedents, trial likely to take time, and parity with five co-accused (Baljit Singh, Balbir Singh, Manjit Kaur, Kamaljeet Singh, Navtej Singh) already granted bail; observations expressly clarified not to be an expression of opinion on merits.

¶1

CRM-M-15056-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15056-2025 Reserved on: 14^th May, 2025 Pronounced on:19th May, 2025

Rajdeep Singh @ Raja

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶10

Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ***

¶11

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

¶12

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

¶13

FIR No.	Dated Police Station		Sections
136	23.10.2024 Dera Baba Batala, Gurdaspur	Nanak, District	109, 111 and 308 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) (111 (5) and 112 of BNS added later on) and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959
2.	Brief facts of the case	relevant	for the purpose of disposal of

¶14

this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got recorded by the complainant Randeep Singh, alleging therein that on 23.10.2024, he along with his assistant Akash was present in his medical store, when one youth reached there and gave him a signal to come to him and when the complainant reached near him, he took out a pistol and fired a shot towards the complainant thereby injuring his left thigh. The complainant raised clamour and on hearing the same, his brother rushed for his rescue and then the assailant fled away. After registration of FIR,

¶15

Parveen Sharma 2025.05.20 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-15056-2025

¶17

¶18

investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, a secret information was received that the accused Anmoldeep Singh was the person who had made an attempt to murder the victim and after the occurrence, coaccused Manjit Kaur, who is mother of the above said accused along with her husband had provided shelter and motor bike to the accused and they were fully aware about the incident. Offence under Section 111(5) of BNS was added. The petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Anmoldeep Singh. He was arrested on 03.11.2024. Investigation now stands concluded.

¶19

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the allegations that at the time of commission of subject offences, he had conducted reiki of the complainant at the asking of co-accused Jeewan Fozi and had assisted in commission of organized crime of extortion. The disclosure statement suffered by the coaccused cannot be admissible against him. He does not have any criminal antecedents. He is in custody since long. Co-accused Baljit Singh, Balbir Singh, Manjit Kaur, Kamaljeet Singh and Navtej Singh, whose case was on similar footing, have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be released on bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶20

Status report has been filed by respondent-State. It is argued by learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, who being a member of an organized gang, conducted reiki of the complainant on asking of the accused Jeewan @ Fozi. He alongwith the co-accused runs extortion rackets. There are chances of his

¶21

Parveen Sharma 2025.05.20 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-15056-2025

¶23

¶24

intimidating the witnesses or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is urged that he does not deserve to be released on bail.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully. 6. The petitioner is alleged to be a member of a gang of extortionist headed by accused Jeewan @ Fozi, who is stated to be in custody, as per the allegations, that he had done reiki of the complainant before attempt to kill him, had been made by the co-accused. He is in custody since 03.11.2024. Trial is likely to take time. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Co-accused, against whom similar allegations have been levelled, have already been granted concession of bail by this Court. Keeping in view the nature of allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the period of his incarceration, the fact that he does not have any criminal antecedents coupled with the fact that the trial would take time as well as the co-accused have been granted bail, I am of the considered opinion that he deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶26

It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

¶27

[MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE

¶28

19th May, 2025 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No

¶29

Parveen Sharma 2025.05.20 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rajdeep Singh @ Raja v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdeep Singh @ Raja v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jaskewal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ajaib Singh Vs State of Punjab

Chaman Lal Kanda and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Chander Sagar Alias Gharonda Vs State of Haryana

Jagbir Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others