Ranjit Singh Alias Bobby Alias Ranjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-54469 of 2026 (O&M) -1-



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

229
CRM-M-54469-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.11.2026

RANJIT SINGH ALIAS BOBBY ALIAS RANJEET SINGH

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON

Present:- Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG., Punjab.
*

NEERJA K. KALSON, J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition preferred by the petitioner under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973),
seeking the concession of regular bail in case FIR No. 48 dated 05.05.2026
(Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 109, 190, and 191(3) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 149, and
148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, respectively), and Sections 25 and 27 of
the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Verka, District Police
Commissionerate, Amritsar.
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54469 of 2026 (O&M) -2-
2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 05.05.2026, upon
receiving information regarding an incident of firing near Bus Stand, Verka,
the police party headed by ASI Kewal Singh reached the spot, where
Lovepreet Singh and Kiratpal Singh disclosed that they had been confronted
by a group of persons, including the petitioner, and that co-accused Nav had
fired shots towards Lovepreet Singh, which missed him. Thereafter, when
the police party proceeded towards the house of co-accused Nav, certain
persons opened fire upon the police officials. During the ensuing pursuit and
exchange of fire, co-accused Krishan sustained gunshot injuries. The
petitioner is stated to have picked up the pistol of the injured co-accused and
fired towards the police party while fleeing from the spot. During
investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 05.05.2026, and a .32-bore
pistol is stated to have been recovered at his instance pursuant to his
disclosure statement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the firing
during the initial occurrence is specifically attributed to co-accused Nav and
no injury was caused to Lovepreet Singh. As regards the subsequent
occurrence, it is submitted that no member of the police party sustained any
injury from the firing attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner has remained in custody since 05.05.2026, the
investigation stands concluded and the challan has been presented before the
competent Court. The case has been committed to the Court of Session,
where the trial is yet to commence. It is further urged that the prosecution
witnesses are official witnesses and there is no reasonable apprehension of
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54469 of 2026 (O&M) -3-
their being influenced by the petitioner. On these premises, prayer is made
for grant of regular bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition,
submitting that the petitioner is involved in a serious occurrence involving
armed firing upon a police party in the discharge of their official duties. A
short reply by way of affidavit of Ravinder Singh, P.P.S., Assistant
Commissioner of Police (East), Amritsar City, filed on behalf of the
respondent-State, is taken on record. Referring to the said reply, learned
State counsel submits that the petitioner actively fired towards the police
party while attempting to evade arrest and that a .32-bore pistol was
recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement. It is further pointed out that
the petitioner has criminal antecedents, being involved in FIR No. 145 dated
09.11.2025, registered under Sections 333, 118(2), 351(2), and 3(5) BNS at
Police Station Majitha, Amritsar Rural, and an apprehension is expressed
that he may interfere with trial proceedings. Learned State counsel, however,
does not dispute that no member of the police party sustained any injury and
that the investigation stands completed, and that the challan has already been
presented.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully perused the record.
6. The accusation against the petitioner is undoubtedly serious,
particularly as it concerns an alleged act of firing towards police officials in
the discharge of their duties. The seriousness of the accusation, however,
cannot be the sole measure of the necessity for continued incarceration. The
Court must consider the nature of the act attributed to the petitioner, the
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54469 of 2026 (O&M) -4-
material collected during investigation, the period of detention already
undergone and the stage of trial, without embarking upon an assessment of
criminal culpability.
7. In the present case, the firing during the initial occurrence is
attributed to co-accused Nav, whereas the specific allegation against the
petitioner pertains to the subsequent encounter with the police party. It is not
in dispute that no injury was caused to any person in the alleged occurrence.
Whether the firing attributed to the petitioner was accompanied by the
requisite intention or knowledge to attract criminal culpability is a question
of fact to be adjudicated upon an appreciation of evidence during trial. For
the limited purpose of considering bail, it is material that the weapon stated
to have been used has already been recovered, the investigation stands
completed and the prosecution has presented its final report.
8. A perusal of the record shows that the following
circumstances are relevant for consideration of the present petition:-
(i) that the petitioner has remained in continuous custody since
05.05.2026;
(ii) that the investigation stands completed and the challan was
presented before the competent Magistrate on 03.08.2026;
(iii) that the case was committed to the Court of Session on
19.08.2026 and, as disclosed in the State's reply, charges have
not yet been framed;
(iv) that 12 prosecution witnesses have been cited and, the trial
is therefore, not likely to conclude in the immediate future;
(v) that all 12 cited prosecution witnesses are official witnesses,
rendering the generalized plea of witness tampering or
intimidation unsubstantiated.
(vi) that the weapon attributed to the petitioner is stated to have
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54469 of 2026 (O&M) -5-
already been recovered during investigation;
(vii) that no injury to any member of the police party or any
third party is attributed to the firing allegedly resorted to by the
petitioner.
9. At this stage, reference may also be made to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40,
wherein it was observed as under:-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from
the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the
appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a
punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused
person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe
more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment
begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be
innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
10. Reference may further be made to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC
308 , wherein it was observed that:-
"The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail,
except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from
justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other
troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating
witnesses and the like"
11. This Court is conscious that the liberty of an accused must be
balanced against the legitimate interests of the prosecution and the
administration of criminal justice. The petitioner has remained incarcerated
for approximately six months, the investigative process has culminated in
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54469 of 2026 (O&M) -6-
the presentation of the challan, and the trial remains at its threshold. The
apprehensions expressed by the State regarding the petitioner’s conduct can
be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions to secure his presence and
prevent interference with the prosecution evidence. In the circumstances,
continued detention does not appear necessary merely on account of the
seriousness of the accusation.
12. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of
the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail upon furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to
the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned,
provided he is not required to be detained in any other case. The concession
shall, however, be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from
disclosing those facts before the Court or any investigating
authority;
(ii) The petitioner shall furnish his permanent residential
address at the time of execution of the bonds and shall intimate
any change thereof to the learned trial Court until conclusion of
the trial;
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave India without prior
permission of the learned trial Court; and
(iv) The petitioner shall regularly appear before the learned trial
Court on each and every date of hearing unless specifically
exempted in accordance with law.
13. It is made clear that in the event of misuse of the concession
of bail or violation of any of the conditions imposed, the prosecution shall be
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54469 of 2026 (O&M) -7-
at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
14. Anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and is meant solely for
deciding the present petition.


03.11.2026 (NEERJA K. KALSON)
s.khan
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 16:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document