Sandeep Singh @ Soni vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-23227-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-23227-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 07.09.2026
SANDEEP SINGH @ SONI
… Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Chahit Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. Second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the erstwhile
Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 19 dated
04.03.2024, registered under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC (Sections 103
and 61 of the BNS) and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, at Police
Station Phase-11, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. The earlier petition seeking
the same relief was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.01.2026.
2.  Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as emerging from the
prosecution version, are that the FIR came to be registered on the basis of
the statement/information received by Inspector Naveenpal Singh, who,
along with other police officials, was present near the Petrol Pump, Phase-
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23227-2026 (O&M) -: 2 :-
11, Mohali. He received information from the Police Station that a person
had been shot dead by some unknown assailants at C.P. Mall, Sector 67,
Mohali, situated on Airport Road. Acting upon the said information,
Inspector Naveenpal Singh, accompanied by the police party, proceeded to
the place of occurrence, where they found a person lying on the slip road
in front of C.P. Mall, Sector 67, Mohali, having sustained multiple gunshot
injuries. Upon checking the deceased, an Aadhaar Card bearing No. 6268
7523 9571 was allegedly recovered from his pocket, identifying him as
Rajesh Dogra son of Ved Parkash, resident of H. No. 797, New Plot, Prem
Nagar, Tahli Mod City, Jammu.
2.1. As per the prosecution, multiple rounds had been fired at the
deceased. The CCTV footage obtained from the cameras installed at C.P.
Mall allegedly revealed that the assailants had arrived in three vehicles,
namely, Creta bearing registration No. JK-02-CC-0019, Innova Crysta
bearing registration No. CH-01-CI-5801 and Brezza bearing registration
No. HP-23-F-7559. It was further alleged that 5–6 persons alighted from
the vehicles and fired gunshots at Rajesh Dogra, resulting in his death. On
the basis of the aforesaid information and the circumstances noticed at the
spot, the present FIR came to be registered.
3.  Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has
assailed the petitioner’s continued incarceration and submitted that he has
been in custody since 07.03.2024 and has already undergone incarceration
for a period exceeding two years, whereas the conclusion of the trial is not
proximate. It is contended that the petitioner’s continued detention for an
indefinite period, in the absence of any likelihood of the trial culminating
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23227-2026 (O&M) -: 3 :-
in the near future, would impinge upon his fundamental right to a speedy
trial, which forms an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
3.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has
been falsely implicated in the present case and that the prosecution
evidence, as it has unfolded during trial, does not furnish any substantive
incriminating material connecting him with the alleged murder. Learned
Senior Counsel submits that the prosecution case, inter alia, rests upon the
alleged eyewitness account of Rajiv Sharma and Dalinder Singh; however,
both the said witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution
and neither of them has supported the prosecution case or
identified/implicated the petitioner as one of the assailants. It is, thus,
contended that the material witnesses who were expected to furnish direct
evidence regarding the identity and involvement of the assailants have
failed to substantiate the prosecution version qua the petitioner.
3.2. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that no incriminating
article was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and
that the alleged recovery of a .30 bore country-made pistol along with two
live cartridges from him is a false and planted recovery. It is pointed out
that three empty cartridges of .30 bore were allegedly recovered from the
place of occurrence; however, the report of the Ballistic Expert does not
establish that the pistol allegedly recovered from the petitioner was the
weapon used in the commission of the offence. Equally, the empty
cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence could not, according to
the defence, be forensically connected with the pistol allegedly recovered
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23227-2026 (O&M) -: 4 :-
from the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that the
alleged recovery does not constitute a circumstance of sufficient
incriminating value so as to justify the petitioner’s continued incarceration,
particularly when the forensic evidence does not establish the alleged
nexus between the recovered weapon and the crime.
3.3. It is further contended that, according to the prosecution itself,
the assailants had arrived at the place of occurrence in three vehicles.
During investigation, the registered owners of the said vehicles were
joined in the proceedings; however, when examined during trial, none of
the said vehicle owners implicated the petitioner or furnished any evidence
connecting him with the commission of the alleged offence. It is also
submitted that the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution does not
disclose the presence or participation of the petitioner at the place of
occurrence. Learned Senior Counsel accordingly contends that, with the
material witnesses having failed to support the prosecution case qua the
petitioner, the alleged weapon recovery lacking forensic linkage with the
crime and the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution failing to
establish his presence or participation, the petitioner deserves the
concession of regular bail, particularly in view of his prolonged
incarceration and the uncertain timeline for conclusion of the trial.
4.  Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of regular bail and submitted that the allegations against
the petitioner pertain to a heinous and grave offence of murder committed
in broad daylight in the vicinity of a busy shopping mall, thereby
reflecting the serious nature and chilling manner of the alleged occurrence.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23227-2026 (O&M) -: 5 :-
It is contended that a specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in
the prosecution case and that the allegations, viewed in their entirety,
disclose his prima facie involvement in a pre-planned and armed assault
resulting in the death of the victim.
4.1. Learned State counsel further submits that the trial has already
progressed substantially and is stated to be at an advanced stage. It is,
therefore, contended that the petitioner cannot seek release on bail merely
on the ground of the period of incarceration undergone by him,
particularly when the prosecution is proceeding with the trial and the
allegations relate to an offence carrying the severest penal consequences.
According to learned State counsel, the gravity and nature of the
accusation, the manner in which the offence was allegedly executed, the
alleged specific role of the petitioner and the overall circumstances
emerging from the investigation constitute relevant considerations
militating against his release at this stage.
4.2. It is further submitted that the evidentiary material relied upon
by the petitioner is required to be appreciated in its proper perspective and
that the alleged deficiencies or contradictions in the prosecution case
cannot, at the stage of consideration of bail, be subjected to an elaborate
evidentiary evaluation as though the Court were conducting a final
adjudication on the merits of the prosecution. Learned State counsel
accordingly submits that the considerations urged by the petitioner do not,
at this stage, outweigh the gravity of the offence and the material collected
during investigation. It is, thus, contended that the petitioner does not
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23227-2026 (O&M) -: 6 :-
deserve the discretionary concession of regular bail and that the present
petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
5. Having regard to the stage which the trial has presently
attained and the material that has emerged during its course, this Court
finds that the circumstances now stand materially altered. The prosecution
has already examined both the alleged eyewitnesses, namely Rajiv Sharma
and Dalinder Singh; however, neither of them has supported the
prosecution case in material particulars or identified the petitioner as one
of the persons responsible for the commission of the alleged offence. Their
examination having already been concluded, the apprehension of the
petitioner influencing or otherwise affecting their testimony does not
retain the same degree of significance.
5.1. It is further noteworthy that the weapon allegedly recovered
from the petitioner has not been forensically connected with the weapon
used in the commission of the alleged offence. The CCTV footage relied
upon by the prosecution does not prima facie disclose the presence of the
petitioner at the place of occurrence. Equally, the owners of the vehicles
allegedly used by the assailants have, during the course of trial, failed to
identify the petitioner as a person who had travelled in any of the said
vehicles. Thus, at this stage, the material circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution do not furnish an unimpeachable or cogent nexus between the
petitioner and the alleged commission of the offence.
5.2. This Court is conscious that, at the stage of considering a
prayer for regular bail, it is neither permissible nor desirable to undertake a
meticulous appreciation of evidence or to record any definitive finding on
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23227-2026 (O&M) -: 7 :-
the ultimate merits of the prosecution case. Nevertheless, the aforesaid
developments emerging during the trial constitute relevant circumstances
for assessing the necessity of the petitioner’s continued incarceration. The
petitioner has remained in custody since 07.03.2024 and has already
undergone incarceration for a substantial period. Having regard to the
present stage of the trial and the fact that its conclusion is likely to
consume considerable time, continued detention of the petitioner, in the
circumstances noticed hereinabove, would serve no discernible punitive or
useful purpose. Pre-trial incarceration cannot be permitted to assume the
character of punishment, particularly when the trial is yet to culminate in a
determination of guilt.
5.3. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the prosecution case or the defence of the petitioner, and keeping in view
the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
the petitioner has made out a case for grant of the concession of regular
bail.
5.4. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed . The applicant-
petitioner is ordered to be admitted to regular bail, subject to his furnishing
requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the
case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-
i. The petitioner(s) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person
from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the Investigating
Agency.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23227-2026 (O&M) -: 8 :-
ii. The petitioner(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in
any manner whatsoever, nor shall the petitioner(s), directly or
indirectly, attempt to influence, intimidate, or contact any
prosecution witness.
iii. The petitioner(s) shall not leave the territorial limits of India
without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court.
In the event any of the petitioner(s) is in possession of a passport,
the particulars thereof shall be furnished before the Investigating
Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.
iv. Before accepting the bail and surety bonds, the learned Illaqa
Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/C.J.M. concerned shall obtain from the
petitioner(s) the permanent residential address as well as the
present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate
documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the
correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours of the acceptance
of the bail bonds and place a verification report on record. In the
event any of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or
incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of
the concession of bail in accordance with law.
v. The petitioner(s) shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either
at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as
may be specified by the Court, the Permanent Account Number
(PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank
accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable
properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or
furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for
seeking cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with
law.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23227-2026 (O&M) -: 9 :-
vi. The petitioner(s) shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as
the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential
address or mobile number within seven days of such change.
vii. The petitioner(s) shall not commit any offence of a similar nature
during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the
learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless personal
appearance is exempted in accordance with law. The petitioner(s)
shall not absent from the proceedings without obtaining prior
permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of violation of
any of the aforesaid conditions or unauthorized absence from the
trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to
proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the
concession of bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process,
including warrants of arrest.
6. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising therefrom or ancillary
thereto, are rendered infructuous and stand disposed of accordingly. The
final determination of the substantive proceedings having exhausted the
substratum of such ancillary applications, no separate or further order is
warranted in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
07.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 09:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document