Allowed¶29

Pawandeep Singh @ Pamma v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2026CRM-M/25057/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail granted; Pawandeep Singh @ Pamma; FIR No. 311 dated 11.12.2025; Sections 105, 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; Police Station Patran, District Patiala; death of Jaspreet Singh after allegedly forced consumption of intoxicants; co-accused Sonu @ Murga; involvement in 13 FIRs not sole ground to refuse bail (Prabhakar Tiwari 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831; Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi 2012(2) SCC 382); GD No. 20 dated 09.12.2025; custody since 13.12.2025; challan presented 02.03.2026; first regular bail petition; CRM-M-25057-2026 (O&M); decided 20.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioner Pawandeep Singh @ Pamma on regular bail subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate; pending CRM(s), if any, disposed of accordingly. ¶29

Pawandeep Singh @ Pamma Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Pawandeep Singh @ Pamma should be enlarged on regular bail in FIR No. 311 dated 11.12.2025 (Sections 105, 3(5), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Patran, District Patiala) concerning the death of Jaspreet Singh, whom the petitioner and co-accused Sonu @ Murga allegedly forced to consume intoxicants, notwithstanding the State's objection that he is involved in 13 FIRs, given the completed investigation, presentation of challan, period of incarceration and the likelihood of a long trial.

¶23

Court's answer

Relying on the ratio in Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of UP (2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831) and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. (2012(2) SCC 382), this Court held that involvement of the petitioner in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail, and that the prayer for bail has to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each individual case.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Considering the first version of the incident (GD No. 20 recording no suspicion on anyone), all relevant facts and circumstances, the period of incarceration (custody since 13.12.2025) and the completed investigation with challan presented on 02.03.2026, but without a comment on merits, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner released on regular bail subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate; pending CRM(s) disposed of accordingly.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.), CRM-M-25057-2026 (O&M), pronounced 20.07.2026 — Regular bail allowed to Pawandeep Singh @ Pamma, first-time applicant, in FIR No. 311 dated 11.12.2025, Sections 105, 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Police Station Patran, District Patiala), concerning the death of Jaspreet Singh, who per the complainant was taken by the petitioner and co-accused Sonu @ Murga and forced to consume intoxicants. Relying on Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of UP, 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., 2012(2) SCC 382, the Court held that involvement in other criminal cases (State cited 13 FIRs) cannot be the sole ground to deny bail. Noting the initial GD No. 20 version in which the family had no suspicion on anyone, custody since 13.12.2025, completed investigation, challan presented on 02.03.2026, trial at initial stage and likely to take long, bail was granted without a comment on merits, subject to adequate bail and surety bonds; pending CRM(s) disposed of accordingly.

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-25057-2026 (O&M)

¶3

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-25057-2026 (O&M) Reserved on : 16.07.2026 Pronounced on: 20.07.2026 Uploaded on: 20.07.2026

¶5

PAWANDEEP SINGH @ PAMMA

…Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

…Respondent

Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal

¶11

Present: Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG Punjab.

¶13

¶14

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. (Oral)

¶15

Petitioners seek regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.311 dated 11.12.2025 under Sections 105, 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

¶16

Police Station Patran, District Patiala. This is the first petition for regular bail.

¶17

Complainant-Tarlok Kaur stated that she was married with Jaspreet Singh son of Harpal Singh on 18.02.2022 and had a daughter Kirat Kaur, aged 02 years. Her husband Jaspreet Singh worked as a labourer. On 07.12.2025, Jaspreet Singh was going for work and was in need of money. He pawned his mobile phone with Sanjiv for a sum of ₹1,500/- Thereafter, Jaspreet Singh met his friends Pawandeep Singh @ Pamma son of Balwinder Singh and Sonu @ Murga son of Gurjant Singh, who forcibly took him along. Pawandeep Singh @ Pamma and Sonu @ Murga forced her husband to consume some intoxicating substance, after which his health deteriorated. Thereafter, Pawandeep Singh @ Pamma and Sonu @ Murga fled from the spot leaving her husband alone. On 08.12.2025, the dead body

¶18

AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.20 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

¶20

CRM-M-25057-2026 (O&M)

¶21

of her husband was found in a public toilet at Anaz Mandi, Patran. His last rites were performed on 09.12.2025.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deceased Jaspreet Singh, complainant’s husband was a drug addict and died on account of over-dose of intoxicants. Petitioner had no role in the entire episode. There was a delay of 04 days in lodging the FIR. Referring to General Diary No. 20 dated 09.12.2025, recorded on statement of brother of deceased, it was argued that even Sonu Singh, deceased’s brother stated that deceased had been consuming intoxicants for some time and on the day of incident, he died due to overdose. Later on, in his supplementary statement, Sonu Singh improved over his version and claimed that petitioner and coaccused were compelling his brother to consume intoxicants. Investigation of the case was complete and challan had already been presented. Therefore, petitioner be enlarged on regular bail.

¶23

Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit of Gurdeep Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Patran, District Patiala and opposed the prayer for regular bail submitting that petitioner was involved in as many as 13 FIRs and he along with co-accused Sonu @ Murga took Jaspreet Singh away to Anaz Mandi, Patran and forced him to take intoxicants, leading to his death.

¶24

In view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP and Anr. 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2012(2) SCC 382, involvement of petitinoer in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail and the prayer

¶25

AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.20 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

¶27

CRM-M-25057-2026 (O&M)

¶28

for bail has to be considered in the light of facts and circumstances of each individual case.

¶29

The incident was first reported to the police on 09.1.2025 by Sonu Singh, brother of the deceased and GD No. 20 was recorded on the lines that his elder brother Jaspreet Singh was in bad company and had been consuming intoxicants and liquor; that he had died on 09.12.2025 after consuming intoxicating substance and that they had no suspicion on anyone. FIR No. 311 dated 11.12.2025 under Sections 105, 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Patran, District Patiala came to be registered after 04 days of the death. Investigation of the case is complete. Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 13.12.2025. Challan has been presented on 02.03.2026. The case is at initial stage and no witness has been examined. Trial of the case is likely to take long. Considering first version of the incident and all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration and the circumstance that investigation is complete, but without a comment on merits, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶30

Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE

¶32

20.07.2026

¶33

Ajay Goswami

¶34

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶35

AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.20 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pawandeep Singh @ Pamma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawandeep Singh @ Pamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandeep Kaur Alias Mandeep Kaur Sarao Vs State of Punjab and Another

Harpreet Singh @ Happy Vs State of Punjab

Akhil Alias Chandu Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Singh @ Happy Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mukul Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Parveen Kumari and Others Vs State of Haryana