Allowed

Bobby Singh @ Bobby v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CRM-M/35922/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought regular bail under Section 483 BNSS for offences under the BNS. The Court rejected the relevance of a mutual compromise in this case but noted the prolonged custody and lack of trial progress. Bail was granted allowing the petitioner to be released on furnishing surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds.

Bobby Singh @ Bobby Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

222

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M No.35922 of 2026 Date of Decision:-10.09.2026

Bobby Singh @ Bobby

…..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab

.....Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

¶10

¶11

Present:Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Vikrant Kumar, Advocate for Ms. Anu Malika Sandhu, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J . (ORAL)

¶15

The prayer in the present petition instituted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’), is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.45 dated 01.03.2026 registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural, under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 126(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) [Section 118(2) of the BNS added later on].

¶16

Custody certificate dated 09.09.2026 filed in Court today is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the case file.

¶17

YAG DUTT 2026.09.10 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶18

CRM-M No.35922 of 2026 -2-

¶19

On the statement of one Manjit Singh, the FIR in question was registered. It was alleged that on 06.02.2026, while the complainant was in his welding shop, Bobby (petitioner), Sandeep Singh and Moni came on a motorcycle and started demanding the keys of the counter box. When he refused, Sandeep Singh and Moni caught him by his arms and Bobby gave fist blows on his left eye and cheek and took out Rs.5,000/- from his pocket and fled. The complainant called his son Jaspal Singh and had told him about the incident upon which, he (Jaspal Singh) came to his shop. The complainant along with his son Jaspal Singh and nephew Lovepreet Singh then went to Bobby’s house. However, he was not present. When they were coming back, Bobby (petitioner), Sandeep, Moni, Sukhwinder Singh and Mandeep Singh waylaid Lovepreet Singh. Moni and Sandeep grabbed him by his arms and Mandeep Singh hit Lovepreet Singh on the left eye with his Kara (bangle). Sukhwinder Singh hit him on the left side of his forehead with a baseball bat and Bobby hit him on the left side of his head with a Khanda (small sword). After this, the accused fled from the spot.

¶20

The injury attributed to the petitioner was declared to be grievous since there was a fracture.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 11 days, he having been arrested on 29.04.2026. He submits that investigation has been completed; however, charges have not been framed, as a result of which none out of 09 prosecution witnesses has been examined. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise, the parties

¶22

YAG DUTT 2026.09.10 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶23

CRM-M No.35922 of 2026 -3-

¶24

have arrived at a compromise since they belong to the same area and want to maintain peace and harmony amongst the families.

¶25

Learned State counsel has, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for the grant of regular bail, stating that a grievous injury was caused on the head of Lovepreet Singh by the petitioner and that if he is released on bail, he may try to threaten and influence the witnesses and may also abscond. It has also been stated that 04 other cases under the NDPS Act stand registered against the petitioner.

¶26

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties.

¶27

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

The factum of a compromise having been arrived at between the parties would not be relevant at this stage since it is an offence against the State. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 11 days and the trial is not likely to commence in the near future since charges have also not been framed. As a result, out of 09 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. The antecedents of the petitioner, though not clean, would not dissuade this Court from granting bail to the petitioner keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail

¶30

YAG DUTT 2026.09.10 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶31

CRM-M No.35922 of 2026 -4-

¶32

on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial

¶33

Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

¶34

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) September 10, 2026 JUDGE

¶35

Yag Dutt

¶36

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶37

YAG DUTT 2026.09.10 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Bobby Singh @ Bobby v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bobby Singh @ Bobby v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases