[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harmanjeet Singh Alias Harman vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 2026
137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13284-2026
DECIDED ON: 11.03.2026
HARMANJEET SINGH ALIAS HARMAN .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking
grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.163, dated 29.06.2025, under
Sections 310(4), 310(5) of BNS and section 25 of Arms Act (Section 238
of BNS added later on) (earlier sections 399, 393, 201 of IPC), registered
at Police Station Gate Hakima, Police Commissionerate, District
Amritsar.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that, as per the
allegations in the FIR, on receipt of secret information, FIR in the present
case was registered against total five accused, namely, (i)Amritpal Singh
alias Kaka, (ii) Harmanjeet Singh alias Harman (petitioner herein), (iii)
Sahil Mattu, (iv) Sahib Singh alias Sabu alias Suraj and (v) Karandeep
Singh alias Karan.
1 of 4
As per the allegations, they had formed a gang and were
allegedly preparing to commit robbery while being armed with deadly
weapons in the area falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Gate
Hakima. On the basis of said information, which was stated to be
reliable, FIR was registered even prior to conducting any raid.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the
registration of the FIR, on conducting a raid, three of the accused, namely
Sahil Mattu, Harmanjeet Singh alias Harman (petitioner herein), and
Amritpal Singh alias Kaka, were arrested. However, two of the accused
could not be apprehended.
4. While filing the final report, co-accused Ritik Malhotra was
found innocent. Upon his application for discharge, the same was
allowed, and he was ordered to be released from jail by learned JMIC,
Amritsar, vide order dated 25.08.2025.
It is further submitted that it was only co-accused Ritik
Malhotra, who was to be released, pursuant to the order dated
25.08.2025. However, due to an inadvertent mistake by the authorities of
Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib, Tarn Taran, petitioner was also released.
5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that subsequently, one of
the accused, namely Amritpal Singh alias Kaka, has been granted the
concession of interim regular bail by this Court, vide order dated
09.01.2026 passed in CRM-M-56149-2025 (Annexure P-4).
Therefore, petitioner need not be sent behind bars, once
again. Since his similarly situated co-accused is enjoying the concession
2 of 4
of bail, his plea for bail may also be considered. Moreover, petitioner is
ready to join the investigation and fully cooperate if protected from arrest
by this Court. Thus, counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in the present case.
6. Order dated 19.11.2025 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Amritsar, is reproduced below:-
"The report from the Jail Superintendent,
Central Jail, Goindwal Sahib, Tarn Taran received, as
per which, Harmanjeet Singh alias Harman (i.e.
applicant/accused ) alongwith co-accused Ritik were
lodged in the aforesaid FIR in Central Jail, Sri
Goindwal Sahib. Later on, release order dated
25.08.2025 qua co-accused Ritik Malhotra was
received from the Court of Dr.Prabhjot Kaur, learned
JMIC, Amritsar, vide letter bearing No.913 dated
25.08.2025. But while releasing coaccused Ritik
Malhotra, Harmanjeet Singh alias Harman was also
released from the jail due to negligence of the jail
official/Head Warder Rajesh Kumar, No.1172. A
preliminary inquiry was got conducted from
Narpinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail,
Sri Goindwal Sahib, wherein, it is stated that Head
Warder/Warrant Officer Rajesh Kumar could not
properly understand the release order of accused Ritik
Malhotra and out of inadvertence, he released the
Harmanjeet Singh alias Harman alongwith co-accused
Ritik Malhotra. Alongwith Head Warder Rajesh
Kumar, the warrant officer Sarabjit Singh, Assistant
Superintendent, Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib, is
also responsible as the order of release of accused
Ritik Malhotra was also put up before him. It is
further submitted that letter has already been written
to Additional Director General of Police (Jail), Punjab,
Chandigarh, to initiate the disciplinary proceedings
against these jail officials. Alongwith the report of
Superintendent, the aforesaid letter as well as the copy
of report of preliminary inquiry are also attached.
So in these circumstances, it is evident that the
Harmanjeet Singh alias Harman has not been released
from the jail as per order of any Court, rather he has
been released alongwith co-accused Ritik Malhotra
due to the negligence of the jail officials as submitted
3 of 4
in the report of the Jail Superintendent. Therefore,
Harmanjeet Singh alias Harman cannot seek the
concession of anticipatory bail by way of present
application, once he has been arrested and lodged in
the jail, but came out of jail due to serious lapses on
the part of the jail officials. The proper course for
Harmanjeet Singh alias Harman is to surrender before
the Court concerned and thereafter, to seek regular
bail. Accordingly, the present application is not legally
maintainable and is hereby dismissed. Papers be
consigned to the Record Room."
7. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by counsel
for the parties and perused the record available before it, and finds no
merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner, as he appears to seek the
concession of anticipatory bail in order to perpetuate the inadvertent
mistake of the jail authorities.
8. Moreover, present petition for anticipatory bail is not
maintainable, as the petitioner, having already been arrested in the
present case, and is in confinement.
9. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
petitioner to surrender before the concerned jail authorities or the trial
court expeditiously, preferably within a period of three days.
10. Accordingly, in view of the direction passed here above,
present petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
11.03.2026 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
