Allowed

Vatandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jul 2026CRM-M/8793/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition under Section 483 BNSS in a FIR for armed snatching under Section 307 BNS and Section 25 Arms Act. Complainant had already deposed but did not support the prosecution case. Court held continued custody served no purpose and granted bail on furnishing sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, if not required in any other case.

Vatandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-8793-2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

217 CRM-M-8793-2026 Decided on : 07.07.2026

VATANDEEP SINGH

.....PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

......RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶10

Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.

¶12

Mr. Saurav Rao, Advocate for the complainant.

¶13

¶14

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

¶15

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No.250 dated 09.11.2025, under Section 307 of BNS and Section 25of Arms

¶16

Act, registered at Police Station Maqboolpura, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

¶17

Complainant Jatinder Singh got registered the FIR which reads

¶18

as under:-

¶19

“Stated that I am a resident of the above-mentioned address and I am working as a private driver at Coca-Cola Factory, Nijjarpura, Jandiala Guru, Amritsar. On 06.11.2025, at about 6:40 PM, I hired an autorickshaw to go from Coca-Cola Factory, Nijjarpura, Jandiala Guru, Amritsar to Coca-Cola Factory, Dump Wala Bypass, Amritsar, and got down near Golden Gate Turn, Amritsar. While waiting there for another auto to go towards Coca-Cola Factory, Dump Wala Bypass, a Sikh youth riding a Honda Shine motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-18-Z-1225 came to me, from whom I requested a lift. The said Sikh youth allowed me to sit on his motorcycle. When we reached near the Coca-Cola Dump on a

¶20

PRIYANKA 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

Page 1 of 3 Pages

¶22

CRM-M-8793-2026

¶23

kachcha road, the Sikh youth stopped the motorcycle, took out a pistol from his pocket and fired, and said, "Hand over whatever you have." The said Sikh youth snatched my mobile phone make Al, having SIM No.98782-09016 and 70874-09016, and after forcibly unlocking my mobile phone, got 855/- transferred from my account to his PhonePe No.₹ 78883-65251. After snatching my mobile phone, he fled away on his motorcycle. I also found the empty cartridge of the fired round from the spot, which I have produced. In connection with this incident, I myself had been searching for the accused so far. Today, I came to know that the name of the said Sikh youth is Vatandeep Singh, son of Sarabjit Singh, resident of Village Bhambhoi, District Gurdaspur, whom I can identify on being confronted. I have come to inform the police. Strict legal action be taken against accused Vatandeep Singh, and my mobile phone and money be got recovered and returned to me. The statement has been read over to me and is correct.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during pendency of proceedings, petitioner is inside jail since for the period of last more than 05 months and 23 days and said aspect is confirmed from the custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel. Learned counsel argues that complainant/victim has already appeared before the Court in a witness box, however, he failed to support the prosecution case. Thus, prays for grant of regular bail.

¶25

On the other hand, learned State counsel is unable to clarify the position as to whether complainant has turned hostile or not, in the absence of confirmed instructions. However, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, Mr. Saurav Rao, states at bar and confirms this statement of the counsel for the petitioner as correct regarding complainant turning hostile.

¶26

In view of this no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner inside jail for a longer period and charges are to be proved beyond doubt and that burden is heavily upon the prosecution.

¶27

PRIYANKA 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

Page 2 of 3 Pages

¶29

CRM-M-8793-2026

¶30

In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.

¶31

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed . Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

¶32

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

¶33

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

¶34

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

¶35

Petition stands disposed of.

¶36

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶37

07.07.2026 pry Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/ NO Whether Reportable: YES /NO

¶38

PRIYANKA 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

Page 3 of 3 Pages

Vatandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vatandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyanka Kheterpal & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Rohit Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another

Karuna Alias Kanishka Vs State of Haryana

Sharvan Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics

Randheer Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab