Punjab and Haryana High CourtCriminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

P&H HC Grants Bail To 3 Accused In Nestlé Factory President’s Murder, Citing Months In Custody And A Lengthy Trial Ahead

Sarabjit Singh Alias Sarbuv.State Of Punjab

P&H HC Grants Bail To 3 Accused In Nestlé Factory President’s Murder, Citing Months In Custody And A Lengthy Trial Ahead. Sarabjit Singh Alias Sarbu vs State Of Punjab. Punjab and Haryana High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to their custody and the time likely to be taken to conclude the trial.

The court held

The Court allowed all three regular-bail petitions and ordered the petitioners’ release on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent court, provided they were not required in any other case.

It also directed

It left the merits for independent determination at trial and stated that the prosecution could seek cancellation of bail if the petitioners were later found directly involved in similar activities.

The petitions and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The three petitioners sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 04 dated 3 January 2026, registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga, for offences under Sections 103, 61(2) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Arms Act.

¶ 1 · p. 2

The FIR alleged that armed assailants shot and killed Umarsher Singh; the petitioners were not named in the FIR, and their alleged connections to the crime arose from matters including a car recovery, an alleged extrajudicial confession, and disclosure or other investigative material.

¶ 2–3 · pp. 2–6

At the time of the decision, Onkar Singh had been in custody since 11 January 2026, Gurleen Kaur since 21 March 2026, and Sarabjit Singh since 27 March 2026.

¶ 3, 6 · pp. 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to their custody and the time likely to be taken to conclude the trial.

¶ 1, 3, 6 · pp. 2, 5–6

ii.2. Whether the petitions should be allowed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

¶ 6–7 · p. 6

03Law Applied

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the statutory basis invoked for the petitions seeking regular bail.

¶ 1 · p. 2

The Court’s stated considerations were the petitioners’ periods in custody and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time.

¶ 6 · p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 103Section 61Section 324

04Reasoning

The Court considered the circumstances recorded in the judgment, including the petitioners’ respective periods in custody, and concluded that the trial would consume considerable time.

¶ 3, 6 · pp. 5–6

On those grounds, it found the petitions suitable for allowance and ordered release on bail. It expressly stated that its discussion was not an opinion on the merits and directed the trial court to decide the case independently on the evidence.

¶ 6–7 · p. 6

05Holding

The Court allowed all three regular-bail petitions and ordered the petitioners’ release on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent court, provided they were not required in any other case.

¶ 6 · p. 6

It left the merits for independent determination at trial and stated that the prosecution could seek cancellation of bail if the petitioners were later found directly involved in similar activities.

¶ 7–8 · p. 6

The petitions and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

¶ 9–10 · p. 7
Punjab and Haryana High Court

Original Court PDF

Sarabjit Singh Alias SarbuvsState Of Punjab

Punjab and Haryana High Court · November 02, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment