Ranbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

The Prayer in these petition under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of the grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.160 dated 11.11.2024 under Sections 126, 115, 304, 3(5) of BNS Act, 2023 later on Section 109, 61(2), 111, 238, 317(2) of BNS Act registered at Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur.

¶32

The present FIR came to be registered on the statement of Ravi Singh and reads as under:-

¶33

“ Statement of Ravi Singh son of Kapur Singh, resident of Ward No. 8, Bajigar Basti, Sunam, District Sangrur aged about 24 years, Mobile No. 98766-54487, it is stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and used to work in Unicorn Company. On 9.11.2024, after finishing my work I on my Motor Cycle No. PB13AP-8091 Marka Splendor was going to my house when I reached near Kularan crossing then 2-3 unknown persons stopped me then one of the person hit me with rod on my face and snatched my Motor Cycle as well as my mobile phone of Real M Company in which my mobile No. 98788-83208 was working. I became unconscious and when I gained consciousness 1 reached near Petrol Pump and telephoned my friend/ neighbourer Ravi who admitted me in Civil Hospital, Sunam where 1 was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and on 10.11.2024 I was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh and at there my treatment is going on. Necessary legal action be taken against the accused persons for the act of snatching and caused injuries to me. All the necessary information has been sent to District Headquarter for further legal action. All the necessary action be

¶34

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.08.12 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CRM-M-15865-2025(O&M) #3#

¶36

taken against the unknown persons under the provisions of B.N.S. Act. On 10.11.2024, Senior Constable Surjit Singh recorded the statement of mine. All the injuries caused to me are subject to the outcome of my medical legal report. ”

¶37

The petitioners and their co-accused have been named as accused on the basis of the statement of the brother of the victim/complainant.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have not been named in the FIR. Their names find mention in the statement of the brother of the complainant who is not a witness to the occurrence. Two coaccused of the petitioners namely, Manga Singh and Dilraj Singh have been granted the concession of bail vide order dated 02.05.2025 and 16.05.2025 passed in CRM-M-22451-2025 and CRM-M-25808-2025 respectively. As the petitioners are in custody since 14.11.2024, but none of the 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, they are entitled to the concession of bail.

¶39

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the allegations against the petitioners and their co-accused are grave and, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail. He however concedes that the petitioners are in custody since 14.11.2024, that none of the 19 Pws have been examined so far and that two co-accused of the petitioners have been granted the concession of regular bail.

¶40

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioners and their co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the trial.

¶41

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.08.12 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

CRM-M-15865-2025(O&M) #4#

¶43

Admittedly, the petitioners are stated to be in custody since 14.11.2024 and none of the 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, their further incarceration is not required.

¶44

Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners- Ranbir Singh son of Sh. Rajinder Singh and Malkit Singh son of Sh. Natha Singh are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

¶45

The petitioners 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 they are not involved in any other crime other than the present case.

¶46

In addition the petitioners (or anyone on their behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each 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 petitioners from trial without sufficient cause.

¶47

The petitions stand disposed of.

¶48

		( JASJIT SINGH BEDI ) JUDGE
August	12, 2025
Vinay
	*Whether speaking/reasoned*	*Yes/No*
	*Whether reportable*	*Yes/No*

¶49

VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.08.12 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ranbir Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranbir Singh 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

Rohit Alias Rohi Vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Alias Raju Alias Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Parveen Mittal Vs Rajeshwar Verma

Robin Alias Karaj Vs State of Punjab

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Shree Narayan and Co. Vs Shri Darshan Lal