BALBIR SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRA-S/1253/2009

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 15-May-2009

CNR: PHHC010119172009

Filing Number

CRA-S/1253/2009

Filing Date

14-May-2009

Registration No

CRA-S/1253/2009

Registration Date

14-May-2009

Judge

Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat

Coram

Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat

Bench Type

Single

Category

36.77 - CRL APPL AGNST CONV GEN MORE THAN 3 UPTO 5 YEARS ( 600 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BALBIR SINGH

    Adv. DAVINDER BIR SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Mr. Justice N.S. ShekhawatView PDF

    Summary of CRA-S/1253/2009: Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld Balbir Singh's conviction for attempted murder (IPC §307) and illegal firearms use (Arms Act §27), finding the prosecution evidence—particularly the victim's credible testimony and medical evidence of gunshot wounds—conclusive. However, the court reduced his sentence to time already served, citing mitigating factors: 18+ years of prosecution, his status as sole family breadwinner, and a 2022 settlement compromise between the appellant and injured (uncle-nephew relations now living peacefully). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-May-2009

    —

    Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon

  4. 14-May-2009

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRA-S/1253/2009

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRA-S/1253/2009: Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld Balbir Singh's conviction for attempted murder (IPC §307) and illegal firearms use (Arms Act §27), finding the prosecution evidence—particularly the victim's credible testimony and medical evidence of gunshot wounds—conclusive. However, the court reduced his sentence to time already served, citing mitigating factors: 18+ years of prosecution, his status as sole family breadwinner, and a 2022 settlement compromise between the appellant and injured (uncle-nephew relations now living peacefully). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case