Chamakdeep Singh Alias Nimma Vs State of Punjab

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.447 dated 01.10.2025, registered under Sections 109, 125, 111, 191(3), 190 of BNS & Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala.

¶15

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for almost 3 months. He alleges false implication. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Deepak Kumar, however, there is no overt act attributed to him. It was a clash between two rival gangs and the petitioner has no concern therewith. Challan was presented on 02.01.2026, however, charges have not been framed and in all there are 16 prosecution witnesses. The petitioner is involved in 4 more cases, out of which, 2 under IPC and the other under NDPS Act, wherein he is on bail. R eliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd.

¶16

MOHIT 2026.01.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

� CRM-M-72649-2025 (O&M) 2

¶18

Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382 .

¶19

The custody certificate dated 08.01.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 2 months and 27 days.

¶20

4 . Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled by the co-accused against the petitioner. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage and the petitioner being on bail in other cases.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

6 . Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.” Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another , (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, “The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.”

¶23

7 . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 2 months and 27 days; on bail in other cases; challan stands presented on 02.01.2026, however, charges are yet to be framed and there are a total of 16 prosecution witnesses, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be

¶24

MOHIT 2026.01.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

� CRM-M-72649-2025 (O&M) 3

¶26

violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

¶27

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶29

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶30

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

¶31

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

¶32

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶33

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

¶34

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

¶35

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶36

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

¶37

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the

¶38

aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

¶39

MOHIT 2026.01.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

� CRM-M-72649-2025 (O&M) 4

¶41

10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

¶42

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶43

09.01.2026 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

¶44

MOHIT 2026.01.09 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Chamakdeep Singh Alias Nimma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chamakdeep Singh Alias Nimma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jiwan Dass and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Bindu Singh Alias Binder Vs State of Punjab

Krishan Shah Vs State of Punjab