Allowed

Harvinder Singh @ Karan v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2026CRM-M/38776/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner, who had been incarcerated for over seven months in a case based primarily on a alleged police confession. The Court noted that no further recovery was needed and the evidence would be tested at the trial stage.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Harvinder Singh @ Karan Vs State of Punjab — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-38776-2026

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

203

¶5

CRM-M-38776-2026 Decided on : 11.09.2026

¶6

HARVINDER SINGH @ KARAN

......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶12

Present: Mr. Harpal Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu,AAG,Punjab.

¶14

¶15

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

¶16

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

¶17

Name of Petitioner(s)	FIR No.	Date	Section(s)	Police Station	District
Harvinder Singh @ Karan, aged about 21 years	324	27.12.2025	324(4), 125 of BNS (sections 308, 111 of BNS added later on) [erstwhile sections 427, 336, 383 of IPC] and sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act	City Gurdaspur	Gurdaspur

¶18

LAVISHA 2026.09.11 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶19

CRM-M-38776-2026

¶20

¶21

Incident in question happened at about 9.00 A.M on 27.12.2025, and complainant namely Sanjay Kumar got registered the FIR, and the allegations levelled therein, reads as under:-

¶22

“I am a resident of the aforementioned address and I operate an office named Zainat Guides Private Limited at Scheme No. 7, near Bus Stand, Tibri Road, Gurdaspur. On date 26.12.2025, at approximately 5:00 PM, I and my workers closed the office and went to our respective homes. Today, on date 27.12.25, at 9:00 AM, when we came and opened our said office, we saw that someone had fired shots outside our office, which hit the shutter of our office, causing damage to the shutter and the glass. Till now, we have been searching for the culprits.

¶23

Please take appropriate legal action. Sd/ Sanjay Kumar, aforementioned, 9814398282.”

¶24

On the very outset, learned State counsel has filed status report dated 03.09.2026 and custody certificate dated 10.09.2026 in the Court today and the same are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the file.

¶25

Petitioner is also involved in another case, i.e. FIR No. 227 dated 21.12.2025, registered under Section 109 of the BNS and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar (however, in the status report, police station has been mentioned as Shri Hargobindpur, District Batala). After being arrested in the said case in the beginning of January, 2026 [as per the custody certificate, on 03.01.2026], two of the accused, namely Harvinder Singh @ Karan (petitioner herein) and co-accused Amritpal Singh, allegedly confessed their guilt before the police in respect of the present FIR.

¶26

LAVISHA 2026.09.11 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶27

CRM-M-38776-2026

¶28

¶29

After arrest of the petitioner, pursuant to his disclosure statement, one Hero Honda HF Deluxe motorcycle, bearing registration No. PB-10-EC-2184, which was allegedly used in the earlier crime as well as while firing at the complainant's house, was recovered at his instance.

¶30

On the basis of the disclosure statement made by co-accused Amritpal Singh, one car, bearing registration No.PB-19-R-6217, one pistol and six live cartridges were also recovered.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is inside jail since 15.01.2026 in the present case, and has, thus undergone incarceration for a period of 7 months and 26 days. It is further submitted that entire case of the prosecution against the petitioner is based upon an alleged confessional statement, while he was already in police custody in another case. It is a well-settled principle of law that a confession made by an accused before a police officer, while in police custody, does not carry strong evidentiary value and cannot, by itself, be made the primary ground for denying the liberty of the petitioner. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period. Learned counsel, accordingly, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.

¶32

On the other hand, learned State counsel is unable to dispute any of the factual assertions made by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, including the total period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner. However, he submits that petitioner is the main accused

¶33

LAVISHA 2026.09.11 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶34

CRM-M-38776-2026

¶35

¶36

in the FIR in question and petitioner along with the other co-accused fired five shots at the closed shutter of the complainant's office. Thus, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and seriousness of the offence, no ground is made out for extending the concession of bail to the petitioner. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition.

¶37

This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the record available before it.

¶38

In the present case, petitioner is inside jail since 15.01.2026, i.e. for a period of 7 months and 26 days, and nothing further is required to be recovered from his possession. Moreover, involvement of the petitioner in the present case is primarily based upon an alleged confessional statement made before the police. Therefore, question regarding the admissibility and evidentiary value of such statement would certainly arise and would be adjudicated at the appropriate stage before learned Trial Court. At this stage, this Court need not express any opinion on the merits or admissibility of the said evidence.

¶39

In view of the totality of circumstances, facts and allegations levelled against the petitioner, period of incarceration already undergone by him, and the factors noticed here above, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.

¶40

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed . Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing

¶41

LAVISHA 2026.09.11 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶42

CRM-M-38776-2026

¶43

¶44

bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

¶45

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

¶46

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

¶47

Petition stands disposed of.

¶48

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 11.09.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/ NO Whether Reportable: YES/ NO

¶49

LAVISHA 2026.09.11 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

Harvinder Singh @ Karan v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harvinder Singh @ Karan 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