Allowed¶11

Sunil Kumar v. State of Punjab

Bail – Regular bail under S.483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Feb 2026CRM-M/51681/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-M-51681-2025 (O&M), decided 24.02.2026 by Mandeep Pannu J.: regular bail allowed under S.483 BNSS 2023 to Sunil Kumar in FIR 46/2025, PS City Khanna (Ss.309(6)/111/317(2) BNS added, S.304 BNS deleted); grounds: petitioner unnamed in FIR, no test identification parade, ~10 months custody, charge sheet filed with zero prosecution witnesses examined, and parity with four co-accused already on bail; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted; petitioner ordered to be released subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. ¶11

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted; petitioner ordered to be released subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arrested in FIR No. 46 dated 11.04.2025 of Police Station City Khanna, District Khanna, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Considering the custody period of about 10 months, the completion of investigation and presentation of the charge sheet without examination of any prosecution witness, the stage of trial, and that similarly placed co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is not named in the FIR; his name does not find mention in the initial version of the complainant nor in any supplementary statement placed on record, and admittedly no test identification parade was conducted.

¶9

Key takeaways

Four similarly placed co-accused having already been granted regular bail, on the ground of parity alone the petitioner cannot be treated differently in the absence of any distinguishing circumstance brought to the notice of the Court.ratio¶9
Nothing observed in the order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case; the trial Court shall decide the matter independently on the basis of evidence led before it.obiter¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail under S.483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — First bail petition in FIR No.46 dated 11.04.2025, PS City Khanna, District Khanna, initially under Ss.304 and 3(5) BNS; after investigation Ss.309(6), 111 and 317(2) BNS added and S.304 BNS deleted — Petitioner not named in the FIR; no reference to him in complainant's initial or supplementary statements; no test identification parade conducted — In custody about 10 months; charge sheet presented but no prosecution witness examined; trial likely to take time — Four similarly placed co-accused (Gurdeep Singh, Roopchand, Azad Singh and Dipish Kumar) already released on bail by co-ordinate Benches — Absent any distinguishing circumstance, petitioner cannot on parity alone be treated differently — Petition allowed; release ordered on furnishing adequate bail bonds and sureties — Observations expressly confined; trial Court to decide independently on evidence.

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M-51681-2025 (O&M)

¶3

108

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

-.-

¶6

CRM-M-51681-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.02.2026

¶7

Sunil Kumar ....Petitioner

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

State of Punjab ....Respondent

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

¶11

Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for t h e petitioner.

¶12

-.-

¶13

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

¶14

First Petition under Section 483 o f the Bharatiya Nagarik Sura k sha Sanhita, 2023 f or granting regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 46 d a ted 11.04.2025, un d er Sections 304 and 3(5) of t h e Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2 0 23 (Sections 309(6), 111 and 317(2) of BNS were added later on and Section 30 4 of BNS was delet e d subsequently), registered at P olice Station City Khanna, Dis t rict Khanna.

¶15

Th e present FIR No. 46 dated 1 1 .04.2025 was registered at Po l ice Station City K h anna on the statement of comp l ainant Mahinder Singh. As per the prosecution ver s ion, on 09.04.2025 at about 1 2 :00 midnight, the complainant w as returning home on his motorcycle after closin g his liquor vend and was carr y ing sale proceeds a mounting to ₹38,000/-. When he reached near Abadi Khann a at about 12:40 A.M., five unknown persons rid i ng on two motorcycles alleg e dly started chasing him. Upon reaching near a flyover and turning towards the residential are a , the assailants encircled hi m and allegedly snatched a b ag

¶16

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.24 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-51681-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶18

containing ₹38 , 000/- along with his Samsun g mobile phone (SIM No. 98 7 8018826) and fled from the spot.

¶19

D u ring investigation, the present p e titioner Sunil Kumar and other coaccused were a rrested on 14.04.2025. Initial l y, the case was registered u n der Sections 304 a n d 3(5) of the BNS, however, after investigation, offences u n der Sections 309(6 ) , 111 and 317(2) of BNS wer e added and Section 304 BNS w as deleted. The m a tter is presently under investiga t ion/trial.

¶20

Le a rned counsel for the petitione r has contended that the petiti o ner has been falsel y implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petition e r is not named in t h e FIR and his name surface d subsequently without any co g ent material. No t e st identification parade was c o nducted and there is no reli a ble identification o f the petitioner in accordance w i th law. It is further argued that the petitioner is in c ustody for the last about 10 m onths and the trial is likely to t ake considerable ti m e as no prosecution witness has been examined so far, though the charge sheet ha s already been presented.

¶21

It is also submitted that similarly p laced co-accused namely Gur d eep Singh, Roopch a nd, Azad Singh and Dipish Ku m ar have already been release d on bail by the co - ordinate Benches and, therefo r e, on the principle of parity, the petitioner is als o entitled to the concession of re g ular bail.

¶22

Notice of motion.

¶23

M r . Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punj a b accepts notice and opposes the present petition on the ground that serious all e gations have been levelled aga i nst the petitioner i n the present case. It is submitte d that the offence is grave in nat u re. However, learn e d State counsel has fairly state d that the petitioner is in custody for TRIPTI SAINIthe last approxi m ately 10 months. It is also ad m itted that though the charge s h eet 2026.02.24 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-51681-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶25

has been prese n ted, no prosecution witness h a s been examined so far. Lear n ed State counsel h as further admitted that four similarly placed co-accused have already been gr a nted bail.

¶26

I h ave heard learned counsel for t he parties and perused the rec o rd. The petitioner i s in custody for the last abo u t 10 months. The investigatio n is complete and t h e charge sheet has already b e en presented, but no prosecu t ion witness has bee n examined till date. The trial is, thus, likely to take time. 9. It is not disputed that the petitione r is not named in the FIR. His n a me does not find m ention in the initial version o f the complainant and there is no reference to hi m in any supplementary state m ent of the complainant placed on record. Admittedly, no test identification parad e has been conducted in the pre s ent case. Furtherm o re, four similarly placed co-acc u sed have already been granted the concession of r e gular bail. On the ground of p a rity alone, the petitioner canno t be treated differen t ly in the absence of any disting u ishing circumstance brought to the notice of this C o urt.

¶27

Wi t hout commenting upon the me r its of the case and considering the custody period, the stage of trial, and the fact that similarly placed co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, this Court is of t h e view that the petitioner dese r ves the concession o f regular bail. 11. Ac c ordingly, the present regular bail application is allowed. T he petitioner is o r dered to be released on reg u lar bail subject to his furnis h ing adequate bail b onds and surety bonds to th e satisfaction of the learned t rial Court/Duty Ma g istrate concerned.

¶28

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.24 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-51681-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶30

It i s, however, clarified that noth i ng observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the m erits of the case and the trial C o urt shall decide the matter independently on the ba s is of evidence led before it. 13. Al l pending miscellaneous applica t ion(s), if any, stands disposed o f .

¶31

February 24, 20 2 6 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whethe r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Whethe r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶32

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.24 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sunil Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

Randeep Vs State of Haryana

Govind Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurjinder Singh Sabbi Vs State of Punjab

Jobanpreet Singh @ Joban Vs State of Punjab

Ramnit Kaur Alias Ramneet Kaur Vs State of Haryana

Reetu Vs State of Punjab