Allowed¶27

Sukhbir Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Apr 2026CRM-M/9118/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail - cheating IPC Ss. 420/34 - FIR No.126 dt. 05.09.2023, P.S. Chattiwind, Amritsar - custody since 11.12.2025, investigation complete, challan filed 02.02.2026 - Rs.6,50,000/- returned to complainant - alleged Rs.20,00,000/- transaction - chronic heart ailment - trial likely to take time - bail is rule, jail is exception - Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-M-9118-2026 (O&M), decided 08.04.2026, Subhas Mehlа J.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on regular bail upon furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. ¶27

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner to be released on regular bail upon furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether Sukhbir Singh, arraigned in FIR No.126 dated 05.09.2023 under Sections 420/34 IPC (P.S. Chattiwind, Amritsar) and in custody since 11.12.2025 with investigation complete and challan filed, deserves the concession of regular bail.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Regular bail granted having regard to: custody since 11.12.2025 (about four months), completion of investigation qua the petitioner, presentation of challan, likelihood that the trial will take considerable time, the undisputed return of Rs.6,50,000/- by the petitioner, and the petitioner's stated chronic heart disease; no fruitful purpose would be served by further custody.

¶22

Key takeaways

Concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment; it is trite criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule and jail is an exception.ratio¶22
The Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted (2nd petition). CRM-M-9118-2026 (O&M): petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No.126 dated 05.09.2023, Sections 420/34 IPC, P.S. Chattiwind, District Amritsar. Allegations: receipt of Rs.6,50,000/- from co-accused Joga Singh's account (complainant: Amardeep Sing, who claims Rs.20,00,000/- was paid to petitioner and co-accused). Held: petitioner in custody since 11.12.2025 (four months); investigation qua him complete; challan presented 02.02.2026; trial likely to take considerable time; Rs.6,50,000/- already returned (undisputed); petitioner stated to suffer chronic heart disease. Bail cannot be denied as a measure of punishment; bail is rule, jail an exception. Petition allowed without expressing opinion on merits; release on furnishing requisite bonds. (Subhas Mehla, J., 08.04.2026.)

¶1

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

247

¶3

CRM-M-9118-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 08.04.2026

¶4

Sukhbir Singh … Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

¶9

Present:Mr. Navinder Jit Singh Dandiwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

Mr. J.S. Mahel, Advocate for the complainant.

¶12

¶13

SUBHAS MEHLA, J . (Oral)

¶14

By way of the 2^nd petition, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.126 dated 05.09.2023, registered under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC, at Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations against the present petitioner pertains to receipt of an amount of Rs.6,50,000/from the account of co-accused Joga Singh and not from the complainant namely Amardeep Sing. It is submitted that the said amount has already been returned by the petitioner, and in support thereof, the bank statement has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. It is further contended that the petitioner has been in custody for the last four months and the investigation qua the present petitioner stands completed. Learned counsel submits that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is further submitted that the present petitioner is suffering from various health ailments, also suffereing

¶16

GEETA RANI 2026.04.09 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M-9118-2026 (O&M) ( 2 )

¶18

from chronic heart disease and his medical record has been annexed as Annexure P-3. Thus, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that investigation has been completed; challan has already been presented on 02.02.2026; present petitioner is in custody since 11.12.2025, and two of the other coaccused are yet to be arrested.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to the petitioner and the co-accused persons. It is further contended that the coaccused persons are yet to be arreseted. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner has already returned an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the complainant.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner has been in custody since 11.12.2025, i.e. for the last four months; investigation qua him stands completed; challan has already been presented; trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude; it is also not in dispute that a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- has already been returned by the petitioner, and that the petitioner is stated to be suffering from chronic heart disease, and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period, as concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment and it is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is rule, jail is an exception,

¶23

GEETA RANI 2026.04.09 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶24

CRM-M-9118-2026 (O&M)

¶25

( 3 )

¶26

this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶27

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 bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶28

( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 08.04.2026 JUDGE

¶29

Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶30

GEETA RANI 2026.04.09 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Sukhbir Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhbir Singh 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

Dawinder Singh @ Ghungri Vs State of Punjab

Pawandeep Dhillon and Anr. Vs Baljinder Singh and Anr.

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Mahinder Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Balvir Singh Jaggi Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jameel @ Jamil Ahmed Vs State of Haryana