JOBAN SINGH ALIAS JOBANJIT SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CRM-M/27042/2026
Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010764332026
Filing Number
CRA-AS/35529/2026
Filing Date
05-May-2026
Registration No
CRM-M/27042/2026
Registration Date
11-May-2026
Judge
Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Coram
Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Bench Type
Single
Category
99 ( 945 )
Sub-Category
39 - ANTICIPATORY BAILS ( 144 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL BRANCH
Decision Date
13-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISMISSED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JOBAN SINGH ALIAS JOBANJIT SINGH
Adv. SUKHBIR MAANDI
-
2.JOBAN SINGH
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF PUNJAB
-
2.JOBAN SINGH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-May-2026
Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF
Case Summary: CRM-M-27042-2026 Court Decision (May 13, 2026): Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed Joban Singh's second anticipatory bail petition with costs of ₹10,000, finding no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration. The Court held that the petitioner evaded arrest for over 2.5 months after his first petition was withdrawn on February 25, 2026, and raised identical grounds without material developments, constituting vexatious abuse of process. Key Reasoning: The petitioner faced serious allegations of armed assault (June 15, 2025) with firearms, including specific charges under BNS 2023 (Sections 109, 190, 191) and Arms Act violations. Although his role was limited to allegedly inflicting a brick blow, the Court noted he was specifically named in the FIR and the lower court observed custodial interrogation might be necessary. The Court emphasized that successive bail petitions require substantial circumstantial change and rejected "forum shopping" tactics. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRM-M/27042/2026
Case Summary: CRM-M-27042-2026 Court Decision (May 13, 2026): Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed Joban Singh's second anticipatory bail petition with costs of ₹10,000, finding no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration. The Court held that the petitioner evaded arrest for over 2.5 months after his first petition was withdrawn on February 25, 2026, and raised identical grounds without material developments, constituting vexatious abuse of process. Key Reasoning: The petitioner faced serious allegations of armed assault (June 15, 2025) with firearms, including specific charges under BNS 2023 (Sections 109, 190, 191) and Arms Act violations. Although his role was limited to allegedly inflicting a brick blow, the Court noted he was specifically named in the FIR and the lower court observed custodial interrogation might be necessary. The Court emphasized that successive bail petitions require substantial circumstantial change and rejected "forum shopping" tactics. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts