Allowed¶23

Suraj Kumar Alias Suraj Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2026CRM-M/13555/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM M-13555 of 2026, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 15.07.2026 by N.S. Shekhawat, J. Regular bail under S.483 BNSS, 2023 allowed on parity with co-accused already granted bail (orders dated 02.12.2025 and 19.01.2026) and anticipatory bail (order dated 18.12.2025). FIR No. 92 dated 01.06.2025, PS Division No.2, District Pathankot; offences under BNS Ss.221, 121, 324(4), 191, 190 and added Ss.109, 117(2), 121(2), corresponding to IPC Ss.186, 332, 427, 148, 149, 307, 325, 333. Petitioner arrested 04.02.2026; challan presented. State opposed citing serious allegations and a pending NDPS case.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. ¶23

Suraj Kumar Alias Suraj Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM M-13555 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

218

¶4

CRM M-13555 of 2026 Date of Decision: 15.07.2026

¶5

Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT

¶11

Present : Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

¶13

N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to grant a regular bail in case FIR No. 92 Dated 01.06.2025 under Sections 221, 121, 324(4), 191 and 190 BNS and (Sections 109, 117(2) and 121(2) BNS added lateron), (corresponding Sections 186, 332, 427, 148, 149, 307, 325 & 333 of IPC) registered at Police Station Division No.2, District Pathankot.

¶15

AMIT RANA 2026.07.16 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

¶16

CRM M-13555 of 2026 -2-

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that from a perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, nor there is any averment, which even remotely connects him with the commission of the crime. During the course of investigation, the police is alleged to have recorded the statement of Sukhveer Singh alias Dippu Bhat and on the basis of his disclosure statement, the petitioner has been nominated as accused in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Rash Pal Singh @ Yashpal Singh @ Aashak has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court on 18^th December 2025, vide order (Annexure P-2). Apart from that, Sukhveer Singh alias Dippu Bhat and Rohit Singh @ Teda have also been granted the concession of bail by the orders dated 02.12.2025 and 19.01.2026 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively). The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 04.02.2026 and after his arrest, the challan has already been presented against him.

¶18

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Learned State counsel submits that there is one more case under the provisions of the NDPS Act against the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of regular bail.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

AMIT RANA 2026.07.16 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

¶21

CRM M-13555 of 2026 -3-

¶22

It is not in dispute that two other co-accused, namely Sukhveer Singh alias Dippu Bhat and Rohit Singh @ Teda have also been granted the concession of bail vide orders dated 02.12.2025 and 19.01.2026 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively) passed by this Court. Apart from that, Rash Pal Singh @ Yashpal Singh @ Aashak has already been admitted to anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure P-2). No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further.

¶23

In view of the above, without commenting any further on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned.

¶24

15.07.2026 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) amit rana JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶25

AMIT RANA 2026.07.16 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order

Suraj Kumar Alias Suraj Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kumar Alias Suraj 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

Baljinder Singh @ Gurpreet Vs State of Punjab

Mohd. Sameen and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Balwant Singh Alias Bant Vs State of Punjab

Jagir Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Avtar Singh Alias Tari Vs State of Punjab