Rajinder Singh Alias Happy Alias Thatta Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Rajinder Singh Alias Happy Alias Thatta Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail: release on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned, subject to monthly appearance at the police station on the first Monday with written intimation, deposit of an FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Trial Court (forfeitable for absence from trial without sufficient cause), and no contact with or intimidation of witnesses, failing which the State may seek cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Rajinder Singh alias Happy @ Thatta, in custody since 27.04.2025 with none of the 17 prosecution witnesses examined, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.153 dated 25.11.2024.

Court's answer

As the petitioner has been in custody since 27.04.2025 and none of the 17 prosecution witnesses has been examined, the trial is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.

Ratio / Principle

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Key takeaways

Release is subject to conditions: appearance before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month until conclusion of trial with written intimation of non-involvement in other crime; preparation and deposit of an FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Trial Court, liable to forfeiture for absence from trial without sufficient cause; and liberty to the State to move for cancellation of bail if the petitioner, family members or associates attempt to contact, threaten or intimidate witnesses.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.), 17.07.2026, allowed a regular-bail petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 filed by Rajinder Singh alias Happy @ Thatta in FIR No.153 dated 25.11.2024, Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar, registered under Sections 109 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (Section 249 added later) and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Defence counsel urged false implication on suspicion alone and absence of any FSL report connecting a .32 bore pistol (recovered on arrest in another case) with this occurrence; the State objected on the ground of the petitioner being an accused in 18 other cases but conceded custody since 27.04.2025 and that none of the 17 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Court held that the veracity of the prosecution case would be adjudicated at trial, but since the trial was not likely to conclude anytime soon, further incarceration was not required. Bail was granted without commenting on merits, subject to bail and surety bonds, monthly police-station appearance on the first Monday with written intimation, an FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited with the Trial Court and forfeitable for unjustified absence from trial, and liberty to the State to seek cancellation of bail upon any attempt to contact, threaten or intimidate witnesses.

CRM-M-11892-2026 -1-

214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-11892-2026

Date of Decision: 17.07.2026

RAJINDER SINGH ALIAS HAPPY @ THATTA . .. Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sethi, Advocate, Ms. Jyotnoor Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kuljinder Singh Dhindsa, AAG, Punjab.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.153 dated 25.11.2024 registered under Sections 109 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (Section 249 of BNS, 2023 added later on) and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR would reveal that the petitioner has been named on suspicion alone. The complainant has not disclosed as to how he had come to know the name of the petitioner and other accused. A .32 bore pistol purportedly used by the petitioner in the occurrence has been recovered from him when he was arrested in another case. There is no connection between the said pistol and the present case inasmuch as there is no FSL report to the effect that the

KUSUM 2026.07.18 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

CRM-M-11892-2026 -2-

pistol has been used in the present occurrence. As the petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2025 but none of the 17 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 bail.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is an accused in as many as 18 other cases. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail as prayed for. He, however concedes that other than the present FIR, there is no other case registered by the present complainant against the petitioner. He also concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2025 but none of the 17 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2025 but none of the 17 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.

Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and petitioner-Rajinder Singh @ Happy @ Thatta S/o Puran 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.

KUSUM 2026.07.18 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

CRM-M-11892-2026 -3-

If the petitioner or his family members/associates make any attempt to contact/threaten/intimidate the witnesses in the present case, the State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted vide this order.

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 crime other than the cases mentioned in this order.

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.

The petition stands disposed of.

17.07.2026

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

Kusum

Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

KUSUM 2026.07.18 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh