Partly allowed¶16

Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Feb 2026CRR/1202/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab; CRR-1202-2010; criminal revision; sentence reduced to period already undergone; conviction upheld; Section 279 IPC; Section 304-A IPC; FIR under Sections 279/304-B IPC; FIR No.145 dated 21.10.1997 PS Dera Bassi; 28 years elapsed; custody certificate 24.02.2026; sentence suspended; bail; fine Rs.200/-; Criminal Appeal No.49-T Sessions Court Patiala dismissed 23.01.2009; Punjab and Haryana High Court; decided 26.02.2026; Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition partly allowed: convictions upheld; sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone; fine of Rs.200/- (if unpaid) to be paid before the concerned Magistrate; all interim application(s) disposed of. ¶16

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

(206) CRR-1202-2010 Decided on: 26.02.2026 Manjit Sin g h ……Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of P u njab ..…Respondent

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI

¶6

Present:Mr.D.K.Prajapati, Mr.M.S.Jo s hi, Advocates, for Mr.Raghujeet Madan, Advoc a te, for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr.Raghav Garg, AAG, Punj a b.

¶8

RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J. (Oral) :

¶9

Petitioner Manjit Singh was arrested in a case bearing FI R No.145 d a ted 21.10.1997 under Section 2 79/304-B of the Indian Pena l Code, 186 0 (for brevity, “1860 Code”) r e gistered at Police Station Der a Bassi.

¶10

After completion of investi g ation in the said FIR, a fina l report wa s presented against him. After complying with the provisions contained i n Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (fo r brevity, “1973 Code”), he was charge-s h eeted under said sections. H e faced trial. Vide judgment dated 07.10.20 0 4, Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Rajpura convicted him under said sections and accordingl y sentenced him to undergo rigorous imp r isonment for 6 months unde r Section 2 7 9 of 1860 Code and to under g o rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and t o pay a fine of Rs.200/- under S ection 304-A of the said Code. In default o f payment of fine, he was ord e red to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Against sai d conviction/sentence, he file d Criminal A ppeal No.49-T of 27.10.2004/1 2 .12.2008 titled as Manjit Singh Vs. State o f Punjab in the Sessions Cou r t at Patiala. Such appeal was SAILESH RANJAN 2026.03.06 10:57 I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document dismissed o n 23.01.2009. Aggrieved there a gainst, he filed present revisio n bottom left

¶11

CRR-1202-2010

¶12

-2-

¶13

petition before this Court, which was admitted on 22.07.2010 and sentence imposed upon him was suspended on that very date. He was ordered to be released on bail.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is accordingly continuing on bail. He also makes a statement at Bar that the petitioner does not challenge said judgment of conviction but leniency may be shown to him in the matter of sentence of imprisonment.

¶15

Learned AAG, Punjab has filed the custudy certificate dated 24.02.2026 of the petitioner. As per it, he has already undergone a substantive sentence of 1 year, 9 months and 7 days including remissions. 5. Occurrence in question is stated to have taken place in the year 1997. A period of more than 28 years has elapsed. The petitioner is not alleged to have repeated the offences in question, as per the custody certificate. Therefore, considering statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner as also facts/circumstances of the case in question, impugned judgments of conviction are upheld. However, keeping in view period of total sentence already undergone by the petitioner and facts/circumstances involved in the case in question, sentence of imprisonment imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone. Fine, if he has not paid, will be paid by him before the concerned Magistrate.

¶16

Present revision petition is partly allowed in the above-stated terms. All interim application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶17

26.02.2026 Sailesh

¶18

(RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) JUDGE

¶19

Whetherspeaking/reasoned :	Yes	No
Whether Reportable :	Yes	No

¶20

SAILESH RANJAN 2026.03.06 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left

Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit 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

Manjit Kaur Vs State of Ut Chandigarh and Others

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Brigu Bhushan Vs Bhag Singh

Nihal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Praveet Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another

Gurnam Singh Vs State of Punjab