Ranjit Singh Alias Sapp Vs State of Punjab

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Jagsir Singh. It was alleged that on 18.07.2023 at about 05:00 P.M., he received the information that his son had received injuries and was taken to Government Hospital in Bathinda. On reaching the Hospital, the son of complainant, namely, Jashanpdeep Singh, informed him that he had been given injuries by Ranjit Singh, Gurvinder Singh @ Guri @ Gurri, Amanjeet Singh @ Amna and 10-12 other unknown persons. The request was made to take legal action against the culprits and thus the FIR was registered. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The deceased, Jashandeep Singh, succumbed to the injuries on 20.07.2023. Supplementary statement of the complainant, i.e. father of deceased, was recorded on 21.07.2023. However in the supplementary statement, the petitioners were nominated as an accused in the present case. Resultantly, they were arrested on 22.07.2023, 24.07.2023 and 26.07.2023. The petitioners approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda praying for the grant of bail. However after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda declined the bail petitions filed by all the petitioners vide orders dated 20.12.2024 & 25.03.2025, respectively. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court by way of filing the present petitions praying for the grant of regular bail.

¶31

Learned counsels for the petitioners have vehemently

¶32

RITTU 2025.08.02 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CRM-M No.28093 of 2025 CRM-M No.23635 of 2025

¶34

-3-

¶35

contended that the petitioners have been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. They have submitted that the petitioners had no concern with the deceased. They have submitted that the FIR was registered by the father of deceased, namely, Jagsir Singh, on the contention that before his death, he made the statement regarding the assailants. They have submitted that the deceased never made any allegation against the petitioners, rather, after his death, on the supplementary statement of the complainant, in a due deliberated manner, the petitioners have been arrayed. They have submitted that the petitioners are behind bars since 22.07.2023, 24.07.2023 & 26.07.2023. They have further submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. They have submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioners deserve to be granted regular bail.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions made by counsels for the petitioners. He has submitted that complicity of the petitioners were found during the investigation and thus they were arrested. He has submitted that the petitioners have played an active role in committing the offence. He has submitted that as per the medical report, there were 05 injuries and the cause of death reflected in the same is complication of long bones fracture, i.e. Humerus and Tibia suffered during assault. He, on instructions from SI Parwinder Singh, has submitted that out of 31 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined till date. He has produced custody certificates of all the petitioners today in the Court and the same are taken on record. 6. Heard.

¶37

RITTU 2025.08.02 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CRM-M No.28093 of 2025 CRM-M No.23635 of 2025

¶39

-4-

¶40

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered from the arguments advanced that the petitioners were named in the FIR, however on the death of son of complainant, the supplementary statement of complainant was recorded and it is here the names of petitioners surfaced in the present case. The petitioners are behind bars since the date of their arrest, i.e. 22.07.2023, 24.07.2023 & 26.07.2023. Custody certificates produced would show that petitioner, namely, Ranjit Singh @ Sapp has completed incarceration of 02 years and 07 days as on 01.08.2025 and petitioner, namely, Randeep Singh @ Roman has completed incarceration of 02 years and 05 days as on 01.08.2025. Custody certificate of the petitioner, namely, Randeep Singh @ Roman further reflects that the petitioner is involved in one jail offence, i.e. Assault/Use of Criminal Force and the punishment awarded to him has already undergone. Out of 31 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined till date.

¶41

8 The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court.

¶42

This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsels for the petitioners succeed in making out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners, namely, Ranjit Singh @ Sapp, Randeep Singh @ Roman and Arashdeep Singh are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety

¶43

RITTU 2025.08.02 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

CRM-M No.28093 of 2025 CRM-M No.23635 of 2025

¶45

-5-

¶46

bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶47

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 02.08.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶48

RITTU 2025.08.02 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ranjit Singh Alias Sapp v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh Alias Sapp 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

Sonu Alias Jai Bhagwan and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Akshay and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Maha Singh Vs Dharambir @ Dharma & Anr.

Ved Parkash Malik Vs State of Haryana

Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others