Allowed¶22

Khushpreet Singh Alias Khushi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2026CRM-M/15285/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-15285-2026 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; Manisha Batra, J. (Oral); decision 21.05.2026; regular bail; Section 483 BNSS; FIR No.305 dated 31.12.2025; Sections 111, 308(5), 310 BNS 2023; Section 25 Arms Act; PS City Tarn Taran; organized crime syndicate; extortion; robbery; sickle recovery; custody since 31.12.2025; parity with co-accused bailed by Trial Court; bail is the rule, jail the exception; pre-trial incarceration not preventive or punitive; petition allowed; personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail on furnishing personal bond and two surety bonds of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. ¶22

Khushpreet Singh Alias Khushi Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on regular bail on furnishing personal bond and two surety bonds of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned in FIR No.305 dated 31.12.2025 under Sections 111, 308(5), 310 BNS and Section 25 Arms Act at PS City Tarn Taran, deserves grant of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS.

¶11

Court's answer

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing personal bond and two surety bonds of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

In allowing bail the Court reasoned that the petitioner is in custody since 31.12.2025, no prosecution witness has been examined, the trial will take considerable time, and pre-trial incarceration serves no fruitful purpose; bail is the rule and jail an exception; pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing; the object of jail is to secure the accused's appearance during trial and it cannot be preventive or punitive.

¶22

Key takeaways

It was clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of the Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.ratio¶25
Since the main petition has been allowed, the pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS allowed to Khushpreet Singh @ Khushi, alleged alongwith co-accused to have formed membership of an organized crime syndicate planning extortion and robbery, in FIR No.305 dated 31.12.2025 under Sections 111, 308(5), 310 BNS and Section 25 Arms Act, PS City Tarn Taran; one sickle allegedly recovered from him; in custody since 31.12.2025 with no prosecution witness examined and trial expected to take considerable time; Court held pre-trial incarceration serves no fruitful purpose, bail is the rule and jail the exception, and the object of jail is to secure appearance during trial, not to be preventive or punitive; release ordered on personal bond and two sureties of like amount; observations expressly not to be treated as opinion on merits or to influence the trial.

¶1

CRM-M-15285-2026 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (210) CRM-M-15285-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.05.2026

¶3

KHUSHPREET SINGH @ KHUSHI

. .. Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate for the p etitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab

¶9

¶10

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Th e instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sectio n 483 of Bharatiy a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2 0 23 (for short “BNSS”) seekin g grant of regula r bail in case arising out of FIR No.305 dated 31.12.202 5 registered under Sections 111, 308(5), 310 of B haratiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS ” ) and Section 25 of Arms Act a t Police Station City Tarn Taran , District Tarn Ta r an.

¶12

As per the allegations on 31.12. 2 025, a secret information wa s received to the e ffect that the petitioner alongw i th the co-accused had formed a gang which wa s engaged in the business of demanding extortion money fro m the public pers o ns, by extending threats to t h em and was also indulged i n carrying out sh o oting, committing robberies a n d other criminal acts by usin g

¶13

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.21 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶14

CRM-M-15285-2026 (O&M) 2

¶15

lethal weapons. It was also informed that on tha t very day, the petitioner and th e co-accused wer e armed with weapons and were present near Drain Bridg e Jarmastpur, Tar n Taran in a car and were hatchi n g a conspiracy to commit som e crime. It was also informed that they could be apprehended, if raid i s conducted. Believing the secret information t o be true, a raiding party wa s formed which r eached at the informed plac e and apprehended the presen t petitioner and t h e co-accused. Recovery of o n e sickle was effected from th e possession of th e petitioner, whereas some weap o ns were recovered from the co - accused. They w ere formally arrested. Investig a tion now stands concluded.

¶16

It i s argued by learned counsel fo r the petitioner that he has bee n falsely implicated in this case. A false recover y has been planted upon him. I n fact, he had upl o aded his photograph with weapon on Social media on the basi s of which, he w a s illegally arrested by the Police and had been detained o n 28.12.2025 and l ater on this case was foisted up o n him. He has been in custod y since long. H is antecedents are clean. H e is not required for furthe r investigation. T r ial will take considerable time t o conclude. No useful purpos e would be serve d by detaining him in custody a nymore. Similarly situated co - accused have be e n extended benefit of bail by t h e Trial Court. On parity, he to o deserves to be e xtended the same benefit. It i s thus, argued that the petitio n deserves to be allowed.

¶17

St a tus report and custody certifi c ate have been filed. Learne d State counsel h as argued that taking into c o nsideration the gravity of th e

¶18

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.21 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶19

CRM-M-15285-2026 (O&M) 3

¶20

allegations as le v elled against the petitioner, he d oes not deserve to be extende d benefit of bail.

¶21

Thi s Court has heard the rival sub m issions made by learned counse l for the parties at considerable length.

¶22

Th e petitioner alongwith the co-ac c used is alleged to have forme d membership of a n organized crime syndicate an d in pursuance thereof is allege d to have made pl a ns for committing offences of e xtortion of money and robber y etc. He was all e gedly apprehended by the Pol i ce, by hatching a conspiracy t o commit the af o rementioned offences. He is in custody since 31.12.2025 . Obviously the t r ial will take considerable time to conclude as no prosecutio n witness has be e n examined so far. Further , pre-trial incarceration of th e petitioner is not going to serve any fruitful pu r pose. Even otherwise the wel l settled propositi o n of law is that bail is the rule a nd jail is an exception. Pre-tria l incarceration sh o uld not be replica of post-conv i ction sentencing. The object o f the jail is to se c ure appearance of the accuse d during trial, and it cannot b e preventive or pu n itive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, thi s Court is of the considered opinion that the p e tition deserves to be allowed . Accordingly, th e petition is allowed and the pe t itioner is ordered to be release d on bail subject t o his furnishing personal as w e ll as two surety bonds of eac h like amount to the satisfaction of the lear n ed trial Court/Chief Judicia l Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶23

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.21 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶24

CRM-M-15285-2026 (O&M) 4

¶25

It i s , however, clarified that the ob s ervations made above shall no t be construed as a n expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the cas e and shall not inf l uence the outcome of the trial i n any manner.

¶26

Sin c e the main petition has been a llowed, pending application, i f any, is rendered i nfructuous.

¶27

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

¶28

21.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No

¶29

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.21 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Khushpreet Singh Alias Khushi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khushpreet Singh Alias Khushi 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

Manjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Gurnoor Singh Sidhu and Others Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Malkiat Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Nikhil Sharma Vs State of Haryana

Rahul Gupta Vs State of Haryana

Amandeep Kamboj @ Aman Vs State of Punjab