Raju v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2026CRM-M/4027/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted — Punjab & Haryana HC, 13.05.2026, Subhas Mehla J; CRM-M-4027-2026 (O&M) Raju; CRM-M-15485-2026 (O&M) Ankit Sharma; FIR No.202 dated 31.10.2025, PS Jamalpur, Ludhiana; Sections 115(2), 351(2), 333, 324(4), 3(5) BNS 2023; sword and chaff cutter; simple injuries; CCTV footage; custody since 02.11.2025 (over six months); investigation complete, charges pending; bail is rule, jail exception; bonds to trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail for both petitioners on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. ¶¶40

Raju Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail for both petitioners on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to petitioners Raju and Ankit Sharma in FIR No.202 dated 31.10.2025 (Sections 115(2), 351(2), 333, 324(4), 3(5), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, PS Jamalpur, Ludhiana). +1 more

¶¶8

Court's answer

Ground for allowing the petitions: the investigation stands completed and the case is now fixed before the trial Court for framing of charges.

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

Ground for allowing the petitions: the injuries sustained are stated to be simple in nature.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

Ground for allowing the petitions: petitioner Ankit Sharma has a clean and clear antecedent.ratio¶¶32
Ground for allowing the petitions: the petitioners have been behind bars since 02.11.2025, i.e. for more than six months.ratio¶¶33
Ground for allowing the petitions: trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for any further period.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Subhas Mehla, J.), decision dated 13.05.2026 — Regular bail granted in connected petitions CRM-M-4027-2026 (O&M) (Raju) and CRM-M-15485-2026 (O&M) (Ankit Sharma) arising from FIR No.202 dated 31.10.2025, Police Station Jamalpur, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 333, 324(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (alleged armed trespass with sword and chaff cutter, injuries to complainant's son, vandalism). Grounds for allowance: injuries stated to be simple in nature; investigation complete with case at charge-framing stage; clean antecedents of Ankit Sharma; detention since 02.11.2025 exceeding six months; trial likely to take considerable time. Applying the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that bail cannot be denied as a measure of punishment, the Court allowed both petitions without expressing any opinion on merits and directed release on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶1

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

224 CRM-M-4027-2026 (O&M) Raju … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent 224-I CRM-M-15485-2026 (O&M) Ankit Sharma … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent Date of Decision:- 13.05.2026

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

¶4

Present:Mr. Balram Prashar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶5

Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

¶6

¶7

SUBHAS MEHLA, J . (Oral)

¶8

Both these petitions have been filed by the petitioners, namely, Raju and Ankit Sharma seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.202 dated 31.10.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 333, 324(4), 3(5)of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Jamalpur, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana.

¶9

Allegations against the petitioners are that petitioners trespassed into complainant’s house, armed with sword and chaff cutter and inflicted

¶10

GEETA RANI 2026.05.16 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶11

CRM-M-4027-2026 (O&M) CRM-M-15485-2026 (O&M) ( 2 )

¶12

injuries upon complainant’s son and vandalized household articles of complainant’s house.

¶13

Learned counsel prayed for concession of bail to the petitioner(s) on the following grounds:

¶14

I. The injuries allegedly suffered by the son of the complainant are simple in nature.

¶15

II. The petitioners have been in custody for the last more than six months.

¶16

III. Trial of the case will take sufficient time to conclude.

¶17

Status report dated 14.04.2026 by way of an affidavit of Inderjit Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana along with custody certificate dated 12.05.2026 of the petitioner in CRM-M4027-2026, has been filed by learned State counsel and the same is taken on record.

¶18

Learned State Counsel opposed the petition(s) on the following

¶19

grounds:

¶20

I. The petitioners have committed a serious offence, as they were armed with deadly weapons and inflicted injuries upon complainant’s son.

¶21

II. The occurrence is captured in CCTV footage.

¶22

III. Though petitioner Ankit Sharma has a clean and clear antecedent, petitioner Raju has a criminal antecedent.

¶23

GEETA RANI 2026.05.16 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶24

CRM-M-4027-2026 (O&M) CRM-M-15485-2026 (O&M)

¶25

( 3 )

¶26

However, it was admitted by learned State counsel that injuries sustained by victim are simple in nature; the investigation stands complete; the case is now fixed before the trial Court for framing of charges.

¶27

Ms. Nav Chahal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant in CRM-M-4027-2026 and has filed power of attorney, which is taken on record. She has opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) by submitting that the injuries caused to the son of the complainant are with a sword i.e. deadly weapon.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds merits in the present petition on the following grounds:

¶30

I. That the injuries sustained are stated to be simple in nature.

¶31

II. The investigation stands completed and the case is now fixed before the trial Court for framing of charges.

¶32

III. Petitioner Ankit Sharma has a clean and clear antecedent.

¶33

IV. The petitioners have been behind bars since 02.11.2025 i.e. for the last more than 06 months.

¶34

V. Trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period.

¶35

As concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment and it is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is a

¶36

GEETA RANI 2026.05.16 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶37

CRM-M-4027-2026 (O&M) CRM-M-15485-2026 (O&M)

¶38

( 4 )

¶39

rule, jail is an exception. Hence, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners.

¶40

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶41

A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.

¶42

( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 13.05.2026 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶43

GEETA RANI 2026.05.16 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Raju v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju 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

Ranjit Singh @ Manga Vs State of Punjab

Yash Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana

Jashanpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mahesh Vs Rajbala

Puneet Vs State of Haryana

Manjeet @ Monty Vs State of Haryana