Jobanjit Singh Alias Jobi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2026CRM-M/52823/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-52823-2025 & CRM-M-73655-2025, Jobanjit Singh @ Jobi and Amritpal Singh @ Amrit Singh @ Gandhi v. State of Punjab, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 16.02.2026 by Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. Regular bail granted in FIR No.17 dated 08.03.2025, P.S. Mehta, District Amritsar Rural, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) BNS, 2023 & Section 25 Arms Act (Sections 61(2), 249, 238, 109, 111 BNS added later); charges framed only under Section 249 BNS; custody 10 months & 22 days as on 14.02.2026; no witness examined out of 45; earlier bail dismissed by ASJ Amritsar on 28.08.2025; release on bail/surety bonds; no opinion expressed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to both petitioners on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. ¶¶44

Jobanjit Singh Alias Jobi Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted to both petitioners on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, arraigned in FIR No.17 dated 08.03.2025 (Sections 103(1), 3(5) BNS, 2023 & Section 25 of Arms Act; Sections 61(2), 249, 238, 109, 111 BNS added later), registered at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar Rural, are entitled to grant of regular bail.

¶¶23

Court's answer

On perusal of the record, the charges against the petitioners have been framed for the offence under Section 249 of BNS only.

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners are behind bars since their arrest on 18.03.2025; the custody certificate shows incarceration of 10 months & 22 days as on 14.02.2026, and the petitioners are not involved in any other case.

¶¶40

Key takeaways

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after conclusion of the trial on appreciation of evidence before the trial Court; this Court refrains from commenting on the merits of the case, noting the trial will take sufficient long time.obiter¶¶41
Keeping in view the arguments raised by both sides and on perusal of the record, learned counsels for the petitioners succeed in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioners.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.) disposed of two regular bail petitions (CRM-M-52823-2025 and CRM-M-73655-2025) arising out of the same FIR, namely FIR No.17 dated 08.03.2025, Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar Rural, registered under Sections 103(1), 3(5) BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act (Sections 61(2), 249, 238, 109, 111 of BNS added later), concerning a firing incident in which 13-year-old footballer Gursewak Singh was killed and Gurpreet Singh @ Jaanu injured. The petitioners, whose earlier bail applications were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 28.08.2025, stood charge sheeted with charges framed only under Section 249 of BNS, the allegation against them being harbouring of co-accused Kulbir Singh, while the assailants who fired were yet to be arrested. In custody since 18.03.2025, having suffered incarceration of 10 months & 22 days as on 14.02.2026, with no involvement in any other case and none of the 45 prosecution witnesses examined, the petitioners were held to have made out a case for regular bail and were ordered released on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits and directed that nothing in the order be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits.

¶1

CRM-M-52823-2025 -1CRM-M-73655-2025

¶2

223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M No.52823 of 2025

¶4

Jobanjit Singh @ Jobi State of Punjab

Versus

….. Petitioner

….. Respondent

CRM-M No.73655 of 2025

¶9

Amritpal Singh @ Amrit Singh @ Gandhi

….. Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

….. Respondent

Date of Decision: 16.02.2026

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

¶16

¶17

Present: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-52823-2025.

¶18

Mr. Karamjit Singh Maangat, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-73655-2025 (through VC).

¶19

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.

¶20

¶21

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

¶22

By this order, I dispose of the above mentioned two petitions arising out of the same FIR.

¶23

Both the petitions have been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR No.17, dated 08.03.2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) BNS, 2023 & Section 25 of Arms Act (Sections

¶24

RITTU 2026.02.17 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-52823-2025 -2CRM-M-73655-2025

¶26

61(2), 249, 238, 109, 111 of BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar Rural.

¶27

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Dalbir Singh. It was alleged that son of the complainant, namely, Gursewak Singh (deceased) was of the age of 13 years and he was a football player. On 08.03.2025, at about 2:00/2:30 p.m., he took his son to Government School ground in village Khabbe Rajputa to play football match. The team of his son secured second position in the tournament and after the prize distribution, the members of the team were taking photo with the trophy. At about 07:15 p.m., two unknown persons arrived on motorcycle and then, the pillion rider fired on Gurpreet Singh @ Jaanu. He again fired and the same hit on the back of his son Gursewak Singh. He fell down in front of him. Due to sudden commotion on the spot, the assailants escaped on their motorcycle. His son Gursewak Singh and Gurpreet Singh @ Jaanu were shifted to Civil Hospital, where, his son succumbed to the injuries. The request was made to take legal action against the accused persons. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioners was established and thus, they were arrayed as an accused in the present case. Resultantly, the petitioners were arrested on 18.03.2025. The petitioners approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar praying for the grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the bail applications filed by the petitioners vide order dated 28.08.2025. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the

¶28

RITTU 2026.02.17 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-52823-2025 -3CRM-M-73655-2025

¶30

present petitions.

¶31

Learned counsels for the petitioners have contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have submitted that though the FIR is for the offence under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS and Section 25 of Arms Act for the murder of Gursewak Singh, however the allegations against the petitioners are regarding the harboring of one Kulbir Singh.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner in CRM-M-52823-2025 has submitted that Kulbir Singh is the cousin of Jobanjit Singh @ Jobi (petitioner in CRM-M-52823-2025) and allegations against the petitioners are after the commission of the offence, which they were not aware of.

¶33

To buttress their arguments, learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners have been charge sheeted by the learned trial Court only for the offence under Section 249 BNS. They have submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents as they have never been involved in any other case. They have submitted that the petitioners are behind bars since the date of their arrest, i.e. 18.03.2025, however, there is no material progress in the trial. They have submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioners deserve to be granted regular bail.

¶34

Status report dated 15.02.2026 (in CRM-M-52823-2025) by way of an affidavit of Ravinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Jandiala, Amritsar (Rural) on behalf of the respondentState has been filed by learned State counsel today in the Court, which is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to counsel for petitioner.

¶35

RITTU 2026.02.17 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRM-M-52823-2025 -4CRM-M-73655-2025

¶37

Per contra , learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He has submitted that complicity of the petitioners has been established after the commission of the offence. He has submitted that they have harbored the co-accused. He has submitted that the co-accused, who have fired at the deceased, are yet to be arrested. He has submitted that out of total 45 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined till date. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶38

Heard.

¶39

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the charges against the petitioners have been framed for the offence under Section 249 of BNS only. The petitioners are behind bars since the date of their arrest, i.e. 18.03.2025. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioners have suffered an incarceration of 10 months & 22 days as on 14.02.2026. It further reflects that the petitioners are not involved in any other case.

¶40

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsels for the petitioners succeed in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioners.

¶41

Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and the petitioners,

¶42

RITTU 2026.02.17 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

CRM-M-52823-2025 -5CRM-M-73655-2025

¶44

namely, Jobanjit Singh @ Jobi and Amritpal Singh @ Amik Singh @ Gandhi are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶45

Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the cases.

¶46

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 16.02.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶47

RITTU 2026.02.17 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jobanjit Singh Alias Jobi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jobanjit Singh Alias Jobi 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

Vishal @ Vishu Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mohsin Vs State of Haryana

Babita Rani Alias Babbu and Another Vs State of Punjab

The Hissar Baba Co-Operative Non-Agricultural Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Hissar Vs Man Singh

Harkirat Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mosin Vs State of Haryana