[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh Alias Pamma vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-5317-2026 -1-
226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5317-2026
Date of Decision: 30.04.2026
Paramjit Singh @ Pamma ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Sahil Goel, Advocate,
for the petitioner (through VC).
Mr. Kuljinder Dhindsa, AAG, Punjab.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in a case FIR No.72 dated 20.05.2025, registered under Sections
109, 132, 221 of BNS, 2023 (Section 303(2) BNS added lateron) (charges
framed under Sections 303, 345(3), 317(2) BNS and Sections 25/25(1-B) of
the Arms Act and Sections 21(B0-61-85 of NDPS Act), at Police Station
Adampur, District Jalandhar Rural.
2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case
was lodged on the statement of complainant ASI Parminder Singh. It was
alleged that on 20.05.2025 he alongwith the police party were checking the
vehicle at the check point. At about 5:40 AM, one Mahindra Bolero vehicle
came at a high speed from Mehtiana side. They signaled the vehicle to stop,
but the driver of the above noted vehicle without caring about the
checkpoint, broke the checkpoint and in order to crush him and other police
officials under the vehicle, he deliberately accelerated. Thereupon, driver of
the above noted vehicle turned the vehicle towards him and the Crime
Branch In Charge, upon which they managed to escape before the vehicle
could hit them. Thereafter, the said vehicle hit the milestone and an iron
board on the side of the road, due to which the vehicle got stopped. The
driver alighted from the vehicle and while running from the spot, he fired
from his pistol on the police party with the intention of killing them. Then
the police party counter fired in the air to stop the driver from firing and
shouted loudly directing him to surrender before the police, but the driver
fired another shot with the intention of killing the police party. Then the
police party shot the driver on the leg with service revolver of .32 bore,
which hit the left leg of the driver and he fell down & his pistol also fell on
the ground. The driver of the said vehicle was caught by the police party,
who disclosed his name as Paramjit Singh alias Pamma (petitioner). During
the search of above noted vehicle of accused 15 grams and two pistols of .32
bore alongwith six live cartridges without any permit or license of heroin
were recovered. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the
accused. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The
petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalandhar praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the
sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail
application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 09.12.2025. Hence, the
petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way
of filing the present petition.
3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in
the present case. He submits that the petitioner has been alleged to have fired
at the check point, but no one got injured. It is rather the police party who
fired upon the petitioner which hit the petitioner on his leg. He submits that
recovery of 15 grams of heroin, two pistol and six live cartridges was
planted upon the petitioner to implicate in a serious case. He submits that
thought the petitioner is involved in 36 other cases, however, in majority of
the cases, he has been acquitted, in rest of the cases, he is on bail. He
submits that it is because of the antecedents of the petitioner, he has been
implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner is behind the
bars from the last 11 months, but there is no material progress in the trial.
He, thus, has submitted that in the overall facts and circumstances, the
petitioner deserves to be granted bail.
4. Learned State counsel has vehemently controverted the
submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the
petitioner is a habitual offender. He submits that the petitioner fired on the
police officials at the check point. He further contends that in retaliation, the
police fired, which hit on the leg of the petitioner. It is contended that after
the arrest of the petitioner 15 grams of heroin, two pistols alongwith six live
cartridges were recovered from the petitioner. On instructions, he submits
that the investigation is completed, charges are framed and out of total 21
prosecution witnesses, 01 witness has been examined. He has placed on
record the custody certificate of the petitioner.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it
is deciphered that the petitioner though has been alleged to have fired at the
police officials, however, there is no fire injury received by them. However,
it is the petitioner who suffered fire arm injury from the fire made by the
police. The custody certificate would show that the petitioner has suffered
incarceration of 10 months & 24 days as on 29.04.2026. It further shows that
the petitioner is facing prosecution in in 37 other cases, out of which in two
cases, he is on bail, in one case he has been acquitted and in one case he has
already undergone the sentence awarded to him. Out of 21 prosecution
witnesses, 01 witness has been examined.
6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the
conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both
the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficient
long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and
perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the
petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
8. It is being clarified that in case the petitioner does not furnish
bail/surety bonds within a period of one week from today, his custody will
not be counted in the present case after one week.
9. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
30.04.2026 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No2
