Allowed¶34

Hardeep Singh Alias Deepu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2026CRM-M/3346/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail granted under S.483 BNSS; robbery of Rs. 2,50,000/- from money exchange shop; petitioner allegedly supplied pistol to co-accused but absent from spot; nomination based on disclosure statement of co-accused Harpreet Singh @ Happy; FIR No.74 dated 18.06.2025, PS Chhabbewal, District Hoshiarpur; Sections 61(2), 249, 253, 309(4) BNS; Sections 25-54-59 Arms Act; custody 09 months 21 days; challan presented 25.07.2025; bail is rule, jail is exception; bail cannot be denied as punishment; one other NDPS case, on bail; CRM-M-3346-2026 (O&M); Subhas Mehla, J.; decided 20.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. ¶34

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 in case FIR No.74 dated 18.06.2025 registered under Sections 61(2), 249, 253, 309(4) of BNS with Sections 25-54-59 of Arms Act added, alleging he supplied the weapon used in the robbery of the complainant's shop.

¶15

Court's answer

Concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment; culpability is to be decided by the trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

It is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule, jail is an exception; considering the petitioner's custody of over nine months, completion of investigation with challan presented, his involvement in one more case in which he is on bail, and that trial will take sufficient time with no fruitful purpose served by further custody, the Court deemed it a fit case to grant regular bail.

¶32

Key takeaways

Nothing observed in the judgment shall be construed as an opinion on the merits of the main case.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Subhas Mehla, J.) allowed a regular bail petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 filed by Hardeep Singh @ Deepu, arraigned in FIR No.74 dated 18.06.2025, Police Station Chhabbewal, District Hoshiarpur, under Sections 61(2), 249, 253, 309(4) of BNS with Sections 25-54-59 of Arms Act added, arising out of the alleged robbery of Rs. 2,50,000/- from Simran Enterprises Money Exchange. Although the State contended that the petitioner hatched the conspiracy with co-accused Jaswinder Singh @ Mango, supplied the pistol used in the robbery and was a habitual offender (involved in one more NDPS case, on bail), the Court noted that the petitioner was not present at the spot, investigation was complete with challan presented on 25.07.2025, he had been in custody for over nine months, and trial would take sufficient time. Holding that bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment since culpability is for the trial Court, and that bail is rule and jail an exception, the Court granted regular bail on furnishing requisite bonds, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits.

¶1

CRM-M-3346-2026 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

233

¶4

CRM-M-3346-2026 (O&M) Decided on: 20.04.2026

¶5

HARDEEP SINGH @ DEEPU

…...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

…...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

¶11

Present: Mr. Esh Gupta, Advocate with

¶12

Ms. Sarika Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.74 dated 18.06.2025 under Sections 61(2), 249, 253, 309(4) of BNS by the police vide GD No.029 dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-2) (Sections 25-54-59 of Arms Act added vide GD No.38 dated 26.06.2025), registered at Police Station Chhabbewal, District Hoshiarpur.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the present case was registered on the basis of statement of complainant, namely Bandna Jaswal, while stating that she is running Simran Enterprises Money Exchange. On 18.6.2025, at about 11:00 AM, she left her shop to go to her house as relatives were visiting, leaving behind Mandeep Kaur, Manisha and Khushdeep at the shop. Thereafter, at about 01:56 PM,

¶17

SONIA PURI Mandeep Kaur (the girl working at her shop) called her and informed her 2026.04.24 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-3346-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶19

regarding robbery committed at the shop. Upon reaching the shop, the complainant was informed by employees that three boys with muffled faces entered the shop and removed Rs. 2,50,000/- from the drawer by showing weapon like pistol and fled from the spot. During investigation, the present petitioner was arrested in this case on 26.06.2025.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present petitioner has been nominated in the present case, on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused namely, Harpreet Singh @ Happy which is inadmissible in the eyes of law; there is no incriminating evidence against the present petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence; the petitioner is involved in 01 more case under the NDPS Act, 1985 and he is on bail in that case; the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 09 months; therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars as he is not required for recovery purposes; trial will take sufficient time to conclude and as such, prayed for concession of regular bail.

¶21

Notice of motion.

¶22

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State, and by way of filing of custody certificate dated 19.04.2026 and reply dated 17.04.2026, opposed the concession of regular bail to the petitioner and submitted that at the house of co-accused Jaswinder Singh @ Mango, a conspiracy was hatched to commit robbery and the present petitioner supplied pistol to

¶23

SONIA PURI 2026.04.24 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-3346-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶25

the co-accused; the petitioner alongwith his co-accused committed the robbery from the shop of the complainant by showing pistol.

¶26

On a query posed by this Court that as to whether the petitioner was present at the spot of crime, it is submitted that the petitioner was not present at the time of committing robbery and supplied the weapon. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in 01 more case, however he is on bail in that case; investigation in the present case has been completed and challan stands presented on 25.07.2025; the petitioner has been in custody for a period of 09 months & 21 days and as such, prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the

¶29

present case and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and the role assigned to the present petitioner that he supplied the weapon to the co-accused to commit robbery; investigation is complete & challan stands presented; the petitioner is stated to be involved in one more case and he is on bail in that case; the present petitioner is in custody for last more than 09 months; trial will take sufficient time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period, as concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment as culpability is to be decided by trial Court after appreciating evidence adduced by the parties, and it is a trite principle of

¶30

SONIA PURI 2026.04.24 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CRM-M-3346-2026 (O&M) -4-

¶32

criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule, jail is an exception, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶33

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of

¶34

the case, the instant petition is allowed . The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶35

Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an opinion on

¶36

the merits of the main case.

¶37

(SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE

¶38

20.04.2026 Sonia Puri Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO

¶39

SONIA PURI 2026.04.24 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Hardeep Singh Alias Deepu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardeep Singh Alias Deepu 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

Labh Singh Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Vs State of Haryana

Ramandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Suraj Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Singh Alias Preet Vs State of Punjab

Mohammad Kaif Vs State of Haryana