Allowed

Arshdeep Singh @ Arshi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CRM-M/37047/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a case involving assault and affray. The court noted the petitioner's prolonged custody, non-fatal injuries, and lack of prosecution witness examination as grounds for the concession.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail upon furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or concerned magistrate.

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

¶1

CRM-M-37047-2026

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

229 CRM-M-37047-2026 Date of decision : 10.09.2026

¶5

ARSHDEEP SINGH @ ARSHI

... PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

.. RESPONDENT

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. R.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶13

¶14

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

¶15

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023(erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.), in case FIR No.92 dated 18.08.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 127(1), 109, 191(3), 351(2), 190 of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 323, 324, 340, 307, 148, 506 and 149 IPC), Sections 126(1), 238, 61(2) and 117(2) BNS, 223 (corresponding to Sections 339, 201, 120-B and 325 IPC) added later on and Section 127(1) BNS (corresponding to Section 340 IPC) was subsequently deleted, at Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that on 15.08.2025 at about 11:30 a.m., the complainant Avtar Singh, along with Ajaypal Singh, Akashdeep Singh, Kulwant Singh and Ali, was present near the cattle shed in the area of Bargari, when about 20–25 persons, including the petitioner allegedly came there and surrounded them. It is alleged that the accused persons, armed with

¶17

SONIA GUGNANI 2026.09.10 17.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M-37047-2026 -2-

¶19

various deadly weapons, assaulted the complainant party. The petitioner is specifically alleged to have been armed with an iron garari and have inflicted a blow on the right knee joint of the complainant. The petitioner is also alleged to have given injuries to the other persons as well.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry. It is submitted that there is an inordinate delay of three days in registering the FIR and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the role attributed to him is vague and limited to causing a single injury with an iron garari near the right knee joint of the complainant, however, the injury was on the non-vital part of the body and is not dangerous to life. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has been in custody for the last more than 05 months and 04 days. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time as none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

¶21

Notice of motion.

¶22

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the reply by way of an affidavit of Mr. Iqbal Singh, PPS, Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Jaitu, District Faridkot and the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which are taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 05 months and 04 days. He, upon instructions, submits that none of the prosecution witnesses has been

¶23

examined so far.

¶24

SONIA GUGNANI 2026.09.10 17.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

CRM-M-37047-2026 -3-

¶26

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

¶27

record.

¶28

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 05 months and 04 days, no recovery has been effected from him, the injury attributed to the petitioner is on the non-vital part of the body and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.

¶29

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶30

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the

¶31

concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

¶32

10.09.2026		(H.S.GREWAL) JUDGE
Sonia
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶33

SONIA GUGNANI 2026.09.10 17.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Arshdeep Singh @ Arshi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arshdeep Singh @ Arshi 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