Ranveer Singh@Rannu Vs State of Punjab

This petition has been filed under section 483 B.N.S.S. (earlier 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 36 dated 28.04.2025 under Sections 109,115(2), 190,191 (3) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station- Sangat, District Bathinda.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that on 27.04.2025, the petitioner while armed with an iron rod attached with tracing wheel had attacked the complainant and inflicted injuries upon the complaint in connivance with his co-accused. It is further alleged that the petitioner gave a blow of his iron rod on a vital part, i.e. head, of the complainant with an intention to kill him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that an offence under Section 109 of BNS is not made out in the present case. It is further

¶15

RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 14.46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CRM-M-8913-2026 -2-

¶17

argued that the injuries attributed to the petitioner have been declared to be simple in nature and prayer for grant of regular bail is made.

¶18

Notice of motion.

¶19

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. accepts notice on behalf of the respondent–State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the petitioner along with co-accused, formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has been in custody for the last 07 months and 16 days and is involved in another FIR registered under POSCO Act but has been released on bail in the same.

¶20

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

¶21

After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 07 months and 16 days, the injuries attributed to the petitioner have been declared to be simple in nature, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶22

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶23

RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 14.46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

CRM-M-8913-2026

¶25

-3-

¶26

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶27

It is clarified that, if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

¶28

08.07.2026		(H.S.GREWAL)
renu		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable:	Yes/No

¶29

RENU RAWAT 2026.07.10 14.46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Ranveer Singh@Rannu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranveer Singh@Rannu 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

Sharanjit @ Sharan Vs State of Punjab

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ikpreet Singh Alias Ekpreet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Baljinder Singh Alias Buly Alias Gully Alias Monna Vs State of Punjab

Santosh Rani and Anr. Vs Darshan Lal and Ors.

Mandeep Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.