Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Punjab
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M-40081-2026(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204 CRM-M-40081-2026(O&M)
Decided on :31.10.2026
Sukhchain Singh . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Iqbalpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)
CRM-35961-2026
i) Present application has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking preponement
of the date of hearing in the main case, i.e. CRM-M-40081-2026, for the
purpose of seeking permission to withdraw the same.
ii) Since the main case is itself listed for hearing today, the
present application has been rendered infructuous.
iii) Ordered accordingly.
CRM-M-40081-2026(O&M)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking grant of
regular bail in FIR No. 104 dated 04.05.2026, registered under Sections
140(3) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), to which
Sections 105 of the BNS and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
RASHMI
2026.11.03 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40081-2026(O&M) 2
Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) were subsequently added
(corresponding to Sections 365, 506 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860), at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.
2. During the pendency of the present petition, petitioner filed
an application for preponement of the date of hearing. Subsequently,
another application, i.e. CRM-35962-2026, was filed, seeking permission
to withdraw the main petition. The reason for seeking withdrawal, as
disclosed in the application, was as follows:
“ Respectfully Showeth:-
1. That the above said case is pending for 23.09.2026
2. That the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the
present case and pursue any remedy available before the ld.Trial
Court first in view of some changed circumstances.
In view of the submissions made above it is respectfully prayed
that the aforesaid application may kindly allowed and petition
may kindly be permitted to withdraw the present bail petition.”
3. P erusal of the record reveals that the aforesaid application
was typed and initially filed on 14.08.2026. However, after certain
objections were raised, same was refiled on 27.08.2026. Significantly,
even at the time of refiling, no mention was made of the fact that the
petitioner had already been granted regular bail by the learned trial Court
on 19.08.2026. Thus, despite granting of bail by learned trial Court
during the pendency of the present petition before this Court, said
material fact was not disclosed in the application seeking withdrawal of
the petition.
4. Not only this, at the time of consideration of the petitioner's
bail application by the learned trial Court, the factum of pendency of the
RASHMI
2026.11.03 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40081-2026(O&M) 3
present bail petition before this Court was also not brought to its notice
by learned counsel representing the petitioner.
5. Although a note regarding the pendency of the bail petition
before this Court appeared on the first page of the application filed before
the learned trial Court, same appears to have escaped the notice of the
Court, as the matter was not specifically brought to its attention by
learned counsel representing the petitioner.
6. Since the factum of petitioner having already been released
on bail had not been brought to the notice of this Court, report was called
from the learned trial Court vide order dated 15.10.2026, while recording
as under:
“i) xxxx
ii) Bail application filed by the petitioner, Sukhchain
Singh, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Vacation Judge, Sangrur, vide order dated
17.06.2026. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed the present
petition, i.e. CRM-M-40081-2026, under Section 483 of
the BNSS, seeking regular bail in the aforesaid FIR.
iii) During the pendency of the present petition, the
petitioner filed two applications, namely, CRM-35961-
2026, seeking preponement of the hearing of the main bail
petition, and CRM-35962-2026, seeking permission to
withdraw the present bail petition.
iv) It was learned counsel for the complainant, Mr.
Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate, who brought to the notice of
this Court that the reason for seeking withdrawal of the
present petition was that, during its pendency before this
Court, the petitioner had already been granted regular
RASHMI
2026.11.03 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40081-2026(O&M) 4
bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated
19.08.2026.
v) Since the factum of the petitioner having already
been released on bail had not been brought to the notice
of this Court, a report was called for from the learned trial
Court vide order dated 15.09.2026, while recording as
under:
“1. xxx
2. Let the report be called for from
learned trial Court with regard to the order
dated 19.08.2026, whereby bail was granted
to the petitioner by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sangrur, and the same be
forwarded to this Court, duly setting out the
reasons and grounds on which the bail was
granted.
3. Let a copy of the present order, along
with a copy of the order dated 07.09.2026
passed by this Court, also be forwarded to
the said Court for information and
necessary compliance.
4. Let notice be issued to the petitioner
through the concerned SHO, requiring him
to appear personally before this Court or
through his counsel duly representing him,
to explain the position, on the next date of
hearing.
5. List again on 23.09.2026, i.e. the date
already fixed in the main case.”
vi) Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, report dated
22.09.2026 was received from the Court of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The
relevant portion of the report reads as under:
RASHMI
2026.11.03 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40081-2026(O&M) 5
“ T he Hon'ble High Court vide order
dated 15.09.2026 has been pleased to call
for the report of this court whereby bail was
granted by this court on 19.08.2026 and the
grounds on which the bail was granted.
It is humbly submitted that the FIR
was initially registered on the statement of
complainant Jagsir Singh against Ranjodh
Singh alone. Sinder Kaur and Sukhchain
Singh were nominated lateron. This court
had granted regular bail to accused Sinder
Kaur on 03.06.2026 and on the ground of
parity, regular bail was granted to
Sukhchain Singh on 19.08.2026 as challan
had been presented and even charge had
been framed after the dismissal of first bail
application by the court of Shri Upinder
Singh Zandu, learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Sangrur on 17.06.2026.
The counsel for applicant did not
bring to the notice of this court with regard
to the pendency of any bail application
before Hon'ble High Court. I acknowledge
that I failed to get it checked with regard to
the pendency of the bail application before
Hon'ble High Court for which I seek
apology. The error committed by this court
is unintentional. This report is hence
submitted to your good self with assurance
that I shall be careful in future”
vii ) Today, Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate, has produced
a copy of the application filed before the learned
Sessions/Vacation Judge, Sangrur, seeking the grant of
bail to the petitioner, along with a copy of the order dated
RASHMI
2026.11.03 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40081-2026(O&M) 6
19.08.2026 whereby bail was granted to the petitioner.
Same are taken on record.
viii) A perusal of the aforesaid bail application reveals
that, in the body of the application, there is no specific
averment disclosing that the petitioner’s earlier bail
application had been dismissed by the learned Sessions
Court or that his subsequent bail petition, i.e. the present
petition, was pending consideration before this Court.
At this stage, Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate, draws
the attention of this Court to the note appearing in the box
on the first page of the bail application filed before the
learned Sessions Court. The said note reads as under:
nd
“Note: This is 2 bail ‘application U/s 483
BNSS for the applicant. First bail
application has been dismissed by the Court
of Sh. Upinder Singh Jandu, ASJ Sangrur
vide order dated 17.62026. Earlier the
applicant also filed regular bail application
before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana
High Court which is pending and the
applicant is withdrawing the above said bail
application through his counsel. No such or
similar bail application is pending by any
Sessions court including Hon’ble Punjab
and Haryana High Court or any other
superior Court.”
ix) It is pertinent to note that, in its report dated
22.09.2026, learned trial Court specifically stated that
the pendency of the bail petition before this Court had not
been brought to its notice and that, thereafter, the
petitioner was granted regular bail vide order dated
19.08.2026.
However, the note appearing on the first page of
the bail application produced today appears to refer to the
pendency of the bail petition before this Court, while also
RASHMI
2026.11.03 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40081-2026(O&M) 7
containing a statement that no such or similar bail
application was pending before any Sessions Court, the
Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, or any other
superior Court.
x) In view of the aforesaid discrepancy between the
contents of the bail application placed on record today
and the report submitted by the learned trial Court, this
Court deems it appropriate to seek further clarification in
the matter.
xi) Accordingly, let a fresh report be called for from
the learned trial Court concerned, specifically clarifying
whether the note appearing on the first page of the bail
application was brought to its notice or was considered at
the time of deciding the petitioner’s bail application on
19.08.2026. The learned trial Court shall also clarify the
circumstances in which the petitioner was granted bail,
particularly in view of the pendency of the present bail
petition before this Court.
xii) List on 31.10.2026.”
3. In compliance with the order dated 15.10.2026, fresh report
dated 30.10.2026 has been received from the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Sangrur. The same reads as under:
“ Subject: Fresh report in CRM-M-40081-2026 fixed for
31.10.2026 in Sukhchain Singh Vs. State
Respected Sir,
It is humbly submitted that when the bail application came
for the hearing before the undersigned, learned counsel for the
applicant as well as Addl.PP for the State neither informed
undersigned about the note mentioned on the first page of the
bail application nor informed about the pendency of the bail
application before Hon'ble High Court. Learned counsel for
applicant started arguing on the merits of the case and I also
started going through the contents of the FIR. Therefore, the note
RASHMI
2026.11.03 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40081-2026(O&M) 8
on the first page was overlooked which is highly regretted and I
seek apologies for the same.
It is also submitted that the FIR was initially registered
against Ranjodh Singh alone and Sinder Kaur and Sukhchain
Singh were nominated later on. This court had granted regular
bail to accused Sinder Kaur on 03.06.2026 and on the ground of
parity, regular bail was granted to Sukhchain Singh on
19.08.2026 after the presentation of challan and framing of
charge.
It is humbly submitted that mistake of deciding bail
application was totally unintentional and it shall never be
repeated again. Had the fact about the pendency of bail
application before Hon’ble High Court been to the notice of this
Court, I would not have entertained the same. This report is
submitted to your goodself with assurance that I shall be extra
careful in future.
Submitted please.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully
Sangeeta,
Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Sangrur”
4. It is evident from the record that petitioner had already
approached this Court by filing the present petition after his earlier bail
application had been dismissed by the learned Sessions Court. During the
pendency of the present petition, he again approached the learned trial
Court and succeeded in obtaining an order of regular bail dated
19.08.2026. The fact that the present bail petition was pending
consideration before this Court was, however, not brought to the notice of
the learned trial Court at the time of consideration of the subsequent bail
application.
RASHMI
2026.11.03 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40081-2026(O&M) 9
Although a note regarding the pendency of the present
petition before this Court was incorporated on the first page of the bail
application filed before the learned trial Court, same was admittedly
overlooked by the Presiding Officer. The learned Presiding Officer, in
both the reports submitted to this Court, has acknowledged the omission
and expressed regret, stating that the same was inadvertent and
unintentional.
However, circumstances surrounding the filing and
subsequent refiling of the application seeking withdrawal of the present
petition also assume significance. Though the application was initially
filed on 14.08.2026, i.e. prior to the grant of bail by the learned trial
Court, due to some objections same was refiled on 27.08.2026, i.e. after
the petitioner had already been granted bail on 19.08.2026. Despite this
intervening development, no disclosure whatsoever was made in the
application regarding the grant of bail by the learned trial Court. Even
when the matter came up before this Court, factum of the petitioner
having already secured regular bail was not disclosed. Rather, permission
to withdraw the present petition was sought by referring to certain
changed circumstances, without disclosing the material fact that the
petitioner had already obtained the relief sought by him from the learned
trial Court.
The conduct of the petitioner, viewed in its entirety, cannot
be permitted. Petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this Court after
dismissal of his earlier bail application by the learned Sessions Court.
RASHMI
2026.11.03 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40081-2026(O&M) 10
During the pendency of the said proceedings, he obtained another order
of regular bail from the learned trial Court without bringing the pendency
of the present petition to its notice. Thereafter, even while seeking
withdrawal of the present petition, the subsequent grant of bail was not
disclosed. Such conduct amounts to withholding material facts from the
Courts and seeking to retain the benefit of an order obtained in
circumstances where the relevant facts were not duly brought to the
notice of the Court concerned.
Although learned Presiding Officer has acknowledged the
inadvertent omission on the part of the Court, the same cannot absolve
the petitioner of his responsibility to make a full and candid disclosure of
all material facts. Permitting the petitioner to continue enjoying the
benefit of the bail order obtained in the aforesaid circumstances would
not only undermine the sanctity of judicial proceedings but would also
send an undesirable message that material facts can be withheld from the
Court and the benefit of an order so obtained can thereafter be retained.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, order dated
19.08.2026, whereby regular bail was granted to the petitioner by the
learned trial Court, is hereby cancelled. Petitioner is directed to surrender
before the Superintendent of the concerned Jail within three days from
today. In the event of his failure to do so, concerned SHO shall take
necessary steps to secure his arrest and ensure his custody.
6. It is, however, clarified that petitioner shall be at liberty to
approach the learned trial Court by filing a fresh application for grant of
RASHMI
2026.11.03 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-40081-2026(O&M) 11
regular bail, disclosing therein all the relevant facts, including the
proceedings before this Court. In the event of any such application being
filed, same shall be considered and decided by the learned trial Court in
accordance with law.
7. In view of the above, present petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
31.10.2026
Rashmi
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
RASHMI
2026.11.03 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document