High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajiv Kumar Alias Rajeev Kumar vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 18 May 2026 · Citation: (2026) 05 P&H CK 1050

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Vashisth, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 3(5), 61(2), 238, 307, 307(1) · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25, 27
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 64948 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 349 words

Sanjay Vashisth, J

1.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking grant of regular bail, in case, FIR No.68, dated 02.05.2025, under Sections 307, 3(5) of BNS, and sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, and later on, challan was presented under sections 307(1), 3(5), 61(2) and 238 of BNS and section 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Cantt Bathinda, District Bathinda.

2.

As per allegations in the present case, an incident of snatching allegedly took place on 02.05.2025 at about 10:00 P.M. As per the allegations recorded in the statement of the complainant, namely Ram Partap, he was working at a liquor shop when the accused persons arrived there on two motorcycles. At gunpoint, they allegedly robbed an amount of approximately Rs.10,000/- lying in the drawer of the shop and also took away the mobile phone of the complainant.

3.

As per paragraph No.9 of the status report dated 05.02.2026 filed by the State, petitioner was found involved in three other cases of a similar nature, including offences relating to causing injuries dangerous to life, and all the said three cases were also registered on 05.05.2025.

4.

Learned State counsel submits that charges were framed on 03.04.2026 and, therefore, without recording the statement of complainant, petitioner does not deserve the concessional relief of regular bail.

5.

Learned State counsel further submits that, after arrest of the accused in the present case, a licensed revolver was recovered from him. However, he could not explain in whose name, the said arms licence had been issued.

6.

In view of the above, and since complainant is yet to be examined, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition for regular bail after examination of the complainant in the witness box.

7.

Trial Court is also directed to record the statement of the complainant at the first instance.

8.

With the aforementioned observations, present petition stands disposed of.

9.

Let copy of this order be forwarded to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.