Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Mar 2026CRM-M/4949/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail petition opposed by State counsel and by complainant's counsel (Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate). Allegations: petitioner named in FIR; access to complainant's flat granted for renovation; misuse of trust; common intention with co-accused; facilitated entry and possession of flat; household articles removed and damaged; illegal occupation; central role attributed to petitioner. Court's observation: allegations grave, prima facie case disclosed. Order dated 2026-03-19 (digital attestation stamp 'PUNEET SHARMA'). Disposition, statutes and precedents not present in the supplied excerpt.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

PUNEET SHARMA 2026.03.19 10.51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶2

The status report has already been filed by the learned State counsel, who, relying upon the same, has vehemently opposed the petitioner’s prayer for bail. It is submitted that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR, and that the complainant had reposed trust in him by granting access to his flat for the purpose of renovation. However, the petitioner, taking undue advantage of this trust, and in furtherance of his common intention with the co-accused, facilitated their entry and allowed them to take possession of PUNEET SHARMA 2026.03.19 10.51 the said flat. It is further alleged that the household articles lying therein I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶3

were removed and damaged. Accordingly, it is argued that the petitioner played a central role in enabling the illegal occupation of the complainant’s flat, as well as in the removal and destruction of the articles therein. On these grounds, the learned State counsel has prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

¶4

Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the complainant and has filed his power of attorney which is taken on record. He has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner has played an active role in the offence. Hence, he prays that the present petition lacks merit.

¶5

The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and disclose a prima facie case, wherein the petitioner, having been entrusted with access to the complainant’s property for the limited purpose of renovation, is alleged to have misused the same in furtherance of a common intention with the co-accused by facilitating unauthorized occupation of the flat and causing removal and damage to the articles therein.

¶6

PUNEET SHARMA 2026.03.19 10.51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶7

PUNEET SHARMA 2026.03.19 10.51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶8

PUNEET SHARMA 2026.03.19 10.51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murshlin Vs State of Haryana

Mohammad Tosif Vs State of Haryana

Gurwinder Singh Alias Mintu Vs State of Punjab and Others

Harkesh Vs State of Haryana

Bhag Singh Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Vs State of Haryana