Allowed

Jaspreet Singh Alias Jassi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CRM-M/38555/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition for regular bail under Section 483 BNSS filed by Jaspreet Singh Alias Jassi in an IPC case. The Court, noting prior anticipatory bail and the petition's lengthy custody without fault, held further detention unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail subject to conditions regarding behaviour, evidence tampering, court attendance, no new offences, passport and cell-phone compliance, and trial delay prohibition.

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

¶1

CRM-M-38555-2026 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

233

¶5

CRM-M-38555-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.09.2026 Date of uploading : 11.09.2026

¶6

JASPREET SINGH ALIAS JASSI ………….Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

STATE OF PUNJAB …….Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

¶10

Present: Ms. Kudrat Sareen, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶12

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

CRM-34248-2026

¶14

The application in hand is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

CRM-M-38555-2026

¶16

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0055 dated 16.08.2021 under Sections 326, 323, 324, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station Pojewal, District SBS Nagar, Punjab.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was initially arrested on 23.03.2022, whereinafter, he was released on bail since the offence(s) in question at that time were bailable. Subsequent thereto, Section 326 of IPC was added on 09.05.2022 and the petitioner

¶18

JATIN 2026.09.11 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-38555-2026 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

was afforded the concession of anticipatory bail on 25.01.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to appear for some time but absented himself on 16.04.2025. Later on, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender on 18.08.2026 and came to be re-arrested on 05.01.2026. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since that day, i.e. 05.01.2026. Learned counsel has further urged that the absence of the petitioner from the trial was unintended, as he was informed of a wrong date by his learned counsel before the trial Court. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 8 months and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

¶22

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 09.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

¶23

I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

¶24

Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the factum of the petitioner having been earlier extended the concession of anticipatory bail, the petitioner having appeared before the trial Court on multiple occasions from 09.05.2022 till 25.01.2023, and there being some semblance of reasoning in the cause exhibited at the end of the petitioner for his non-appearance; this Court is inclined to grant the

¶25

concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶26

JATIN 2026.09.11 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-38555-2026 (O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

As per custody certificate dated 09.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 08 months and 04 days & is shown to be involved in other cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

¶30

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶31

In view of above, the present petition is allowed . Ergo , the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

¶33

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or

¶34

JATIN 2026.09.11 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CRM-M-38555-2026 (O&M)

¶36

-4-

¶37

documentary, during the trial.

¶38

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

¶39

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

¶40

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

¶41

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

¶42