Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pankaj Kumar @ Sahil vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
112+280+281
1) CRA-S-2580-2025
Gurmeet Singh @ Sabba . . . Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
2) CRA-S-3937-2025 (O&M)
Fanil @ Fanil Nagpal @ Nommi . . . Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another . . . Respondent(s)
3) CRA-S-4093-2025
Arvind Kumar . . . Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another . . . Respondent(s)
4) CRA-S-82-2026 (O&M)
Pankaj Kumar alias Sahil . . . Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another . . . Respondent(s)
5) CRA-S-894-2026 (O&M)
Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma . . . Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another . . . Respondent(s)
JAWALA RAM
2026.04.17 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES -2-
6) CRA-S-834-2026
Ninder Kaur @ Ninder . . . Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another . . . Respondent(s)
7) CRA-S-908-2026
Sahib Singh alias Rayi . . . Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another . . . Respondent(s)
8) CRA-S-912-2026
Gurjant Singh alias Janta . . . Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another . . . Respondent(s)
1. Date when the judgment was reserved 06.04.2026
2. Date when the judgment is pronounced 17.04.2026
3. Date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 17.04.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable.
judgment, and reasons thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Argued by: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Kashish Sahni, Advocate and
Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, for the appellant(s)
(in CRA-S-4093-2025 & CRA-S-82-2026).
Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate
for the appellant(s) (in CRA-S-2580-2025).
Mr. APS Rehan, Advocate
for the appellant(s) (in CRA-S-3937-2025).
JAWALA RAM
2026.04.17 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES -3-
Mr. Manjot Singh, Advocate
for the appellant(s) (in CRA-S-894-2026).
Mr. Ishnoor Singh Bains, Advocate
for the appellant(s) (in CRA-S-834-2026).
Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate
for the appellant(s) (in CRA-S-912-2026).
Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab and
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. This order shall dispose of CRA-S-2580-2025, CRA-S-3937- 2025 (O&M), CRA-S-4093-2025, CRA-S-82-2026 (O&M), CRA-S-894- 2026, CRA-S-834-2026, CRA-S-908-2026 (O&M) and CRA-S-912-2026, as all the petitions are interconnected and have arisen out of same FIR. However, the lead case is CRA-S-2580-2025.
2. Appellants have filed the present appeals by challenging the orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby applications filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail to the appellants were dismissed, vide impugned orders, i.e.; (i) dt. 14.07.2025 in CRA-S-2580-2025, (ii) dt. 21.11.2025 in CRA-S-3937-2025 (O&M), (iii) dt. 10.12.2025 in CRA-S-4093-2025, (iv) dt. 20.12.2025 in CRA-S-82-2026 (O&M), (v) dt. 09.12.2025 in CRA-S-894-2026, (vi) dt. 20.01.2026 in CRA- S-834-2026, (vii) dt. 07.01.2026 in CRA-S-908-2026 (O&M), and (viii) dt. 07.01.2026 in CRA-S-912-2026, in case, FIR No.42 dated 13.05.2025, registered under Sections 105, 103, 109, 61(2), 103(2), 123 and 238 of BNS, 2023, Sections 61(1), 61-A of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, Section 6 of Poisons Act and Sections 3 & 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station JAWALA RAM 2026.04.17 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES -4- Majitha, District Amritsar Rural.
Earlier, ten persons lost their lives after consuming spurious liquor. Consequently, FIR in question was registered against the appellants.
3. As per the FIR, police received information that Prabhjit Singh @ Babbu and Kulbir Singh @ Jaggu, sons of Amrik Singh, were engaged in preparing large quantities of alcohol and intoxicants and supplying them to various villages. It was further reported that they had already sold the alcohol prepared by them to (1) Sahab Singh @ Rai (appellant in CRA-S-908-2026), (2) Gurjant Singh @ Janta (appellant in CRA-S-912-2026), (3) Sikander Singh @ Pappu, (4) Ninder Kaur (appellant in CRA-S-834-2026), (5) Paramjit Singh @ Pamma (appellant in CRA-S-894-2026), and (6) Raja, who in turn distributed it to different individuals in their respective villages. As a result of consuming this alcohol, several persons died, namely:- (1) Major Singh @ Modu, (2) Paramjit Singh @ Panna, (3) Sarabjit Singh @ Sabba, (4) Tasveer Singh @ Sikdar, (5) Joginder Singh @ Manna, (6) Karnail Singh @ Mahant, (7) Jeeta @ Siti, (8) Balbir Singh, (9) Ramandeep Singh, and (10) Romanjit Singh @ Romi. Some other persons were also reported to have fallen ill after consuming the said poisonous liquor.
During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer collected evidence relating to the purchase of materials used for preparing the spurious liquor. One such instance revealed that the chemical methanol was in the process of delivery from the co-accused, namely, Rishabh Jain and Ravinder Kumar Jain.
4. At this stage, learned State counsel has filed two status reports, i.e., dated 06.03.2026 in CRA-S-3937-2025 and dated 05.04.2026 in CRA-S- 894-2026). However, these are comprehensive status reports, which are JAWALA RAM 2026.04.17 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES -5- covering status qua all the appellants. Besides, three custody certificates, i.e., dated 05.04.2026 in CRA-S-834-2026, CRA-S-908-2026 and CRA-S-912- 2026, have also been filed in Court.
Status reports and custody certificates are taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place in the case files.
Status report dated 16.09.2025 in CRA-S-2580-2025 is already there on the record of the case file.
5. As per comprehensive status report dated 06.03.2026 in CRA-S- 3937-2025, following accused (including the appellants herein) were nominated in the case, after registration of case:-
"i) Sahib Singh alias Saba son of Sukhdev Singh;
(Date of Arrest: 13.05.2025) Recovery: One canister containing 20 bottles of alcohol methanol, one Ford Figo Car and one mobile phone.
ii) Ravi Kumar son of Roshan Lal;
(Date of Arrest: 16.05.2025) Recovery: One canister containing 20 bottles of alcohol methanol, one Pulsar Motorcycle and one mobile phone.
iii) Prabjit Singh alias Babbu son of Amrik Singh; (Date of Arrest: 13.05.2025) Recovery: One canister containing 10 bottles of alcohol methanol, one burnt can and one mobile phone.
iv) Kulbir Singh alias Jaggu son of Amrik Singh; (Date of Arrest: 13.05.2025) Recovery: One canister containing 10 bottles of alcohol methanol, one can and one mobile phone.
v) Gurmeet Singh alias Shabba son of Tara Singh; (Date of Arrest: 14.05.2025) (NO RECOVERY)
vi) Sahib Singh alias Rai son of Pritam Singh;
(Date of Arrest: 13.05.2025) (NO RECOVERY)
vii) Gurjant Singh alias Jeta son of Sahib Singh;
(Date of Arrest: 13.05.2025)
(NO RECOVERY)
JAWALA RAM
2026.04.17 16:11
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES -6-
viii) Sikander Singh alias Pappu son of Sarabjit Singh, (Date of Arrest: 13.05.2025) (NO RECOVERY)
ix) Ninder Kaur, wife of Sita alias Jeeta;
(Date of Arrest: 13.05.2025)
(NO RECOVERY)
x) Paramjit Singh alias Pamma;
(Date of Arrest: 14.05.2025)
(NO RECOVERY)
xi) Pankaj Kumar alias Sahil son of Raj Kumar;
(Date of Arrest: 13.05.2025) Recovery: One Laptop, one mobile phone, one apple mobile phone and four files.
xii) Arvind Kumar son of Raj Kumar;
(Date of Arrest: 13.05.2025) (NO RECOVERY)
xiii) Rishab Jain son of Ravinder Jain;
(Date of Arrest: 14.05.2025) (NO RECOVERY)
xiv) Ravinder Kumar Jain son of Nand Kishore Jain; (Date of Arrest: 14.05.2025) (Petitioner) Joint Recovery: Four sale purchase register, one Vivo mobile, one Samsung mobile, one iphone and two Lenovo laptops.
xv) Fanil Nagpal son of Rajesh Kumar;
(Date of Arrest: 20.05.2025) Recovery: One sample, one mobile phone, bill No.1274, one CPU and stock register of 2025.
xvi) Rajvinder Singh alias Raja son of Vassan Singh; (NO RECOVERY) xvii) Raja son of Taba;
(NO RECOVERY) xviii) Rajeev Kumar Jain son of unknown;
(NO RECOVERY) xix) Kawaljit Singh son of Jaspal Singh;
(NO RECOVERY) xx) Navdeep Singh alias Deep son of Mohan Singh (Declared innocent during the investigation) Recovery: 3 drums plastic containing 200 liters alcohol methanol each with a total of 600 liter and grocery along with truck No. PB 10 HT 1577."
JAWALA RAM2026.04.17 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES -7-
6. Besides, it is also relevant to notice here that, this Court while hearing the arguments in CRA-S-2580-2025 (when it was clubbed with the appeals of co-accused, Ravinder Kumar Jain & Rishabh Jain, i.e., CRA-S- 2265-2025 & CRA-S-2272-2025), following order was passed on 03.11.2025:-
"i) While reading out the FIR, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argues that the Investigating Officer received secret information regarding accused (i) Prabhjit Singh @ Babu and
(ii) Kulbir Singh @ Jagu, to the effect that they were engaged in the business of preparing large quantities of alcohol and intoxicants, which were thereafter being supplied to different villages. From the secret information, it also emerged that the aforesaid two accused used to prepare the alcohol, which was then sold to other accused, namely (iii) Sahab Singh @ Raai,
(iv) Gurjant Singh @ Janta, (v) Sikander Singh @ Papu, (vi) Ninder Kaur, (vii) Paramjit Singh @ Pamma, and (viii) Raja.
Said alcohol was allegedly supplied to various persons in their respective villages, as a result of which about ten persons lost their lives.
(ii) Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, as per the FIR, the deaths were reported to the police at about 6:15 a.m. on 13.05.2025. Therefore, in all likelihood, the alleged spurious liquor would have been prepared and delivered sometime on 11th or 12th May 2025, or even earlier.
(iii) Learned Senior Counsel also refers to the final investigation report/challan, wherein he draws attention to the disclosure statement of the main accused, namely Sahab Singh @ Saba, in which he disclosed as under:
"that on 10.05.2025, I searched on Google and sent an inquiry on IndiaMART to Bharat Heavy Chemicals, New Delhi. And on my Whatsapp they sent me a list of chemicals which they had available with them. On 11.05.2025, I JAWALA RAM contacted them by phone and discussed about the purchase 2026.04.17 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES -8- of 600 liters of Methanol. They asked me what I intended to do with the Methanol. Initially, I told them I would use it to make hand Sanitizer, but they didn't belevie me, so I told them I intended to prepare illegal liquor from it. Rishab Jain also told me that Methanol is a poison and that illegal liquor cannot be prepared from it. I told him that we would be running a good business and that this illegal liquor is primarily consumed by poor people from lower castes, who are numerous in villages."
iv) Reference is made to another document, namely the Tax Invoice dated 12.05.2025 (A-3) issued by Shikhar Industries, the manufacturer of Methanol, which was billed to Bharat Heavy Chemicals for a sum of Rs. 23,364/- inclusive of 18% GST. Learned Senior Counsel argues that, in fact, the invoice pertains to 600 liters of Methanol.
v) Learned Senior Counsel further refers to another tax invoice prepared by Bharat Heavy Chemicals dated 12.05.2025 (A-4), billed to one Ravi Kumar, Tehsil Ajnala, Village Harsha, Chhina Ucha Quilla, Ajnala, Amritsar, Punjab, for a sum of Rs.35,872/- inclusive of 18% GST.
vi) Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate, submits that Shikhar Industries sold the Methanol to Bharat Heavy Chemicals, run by the appellant Rishab Jain, and Bharat Heavy Chemicals further sold it to Ravi Kumar, earning a profit over the purchased amount.
vii) Counsel further refers to the receipt dated 12.05.2025 issued by The Bharat Motor Transport Co. (P) Ltd., H.O. Nizam Road, Ludhiana, and submits that 600 liters of Methanol were transported from Sanjay Singh Transport, Delhi, to Amritsar, where the consignee, Ravi Kumar, was to receive it.
viii) It is further argued that there cannot be any connivance or conspiracy between the appellant Rishab Jain and the main accused, namely Sahab Singh, etc., because prior to the transaction they had never met each other, nor has any such evidence been pointed out by the Investigating Agency during JAWALA RAM 2026.04.17 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES -9- the investigation of the case.
Appellant has been engaged in the same business for the past 15-20 years and has a clean record, with no prior involvement in any similar activity.
ix) Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, as per the investigation report, the 600 liters of Methanol was recovered by the Investigating Officer on 14.05.2025 itself, i.e., after the occurrence. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the Methanol arranged by the appellant at the request of the main accused, Sahab Singh, was used for the preparation of the spurious liquor that resulted in the deaths of several persons.
x) However, on being confronted by the Court, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned State Counsel seek to verify whether the appellant's company/firm was authorized to engage in the trade of Methanol, which is indisputably a poisonous substance.
xi) List on 07.11.2025.
xii) To be shown in the urgent list.
xiii) A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases."
7. While drawing the attention of this Court to 'The Poisons Act, 1919', reference has been made to Section 6 thereof, which prescribes the penalty for unlawful importation.
8. Admittedly, no material has been placed on record by the appellant(s) or the State, to show that appellant(s) possessed any licence to deal in the chemical 'methanol'. Therefore, matter is required to be considered in accordance with Section 6 of the Poisons Act, 1919.
For reference, Section 6 of the Poisons Act, 1919 reads as under :-
"6. Penalty for unlawful importation, etc.--JAWALA RAM 2026.04.17 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES - 10 -
(1) Whoever--
(a) commits a breach of any rule made under section 2, or
(b) Imports without a licence [into [India] across a customs
frontier defined by the Central Central Government] any poison the importation of which is for the time being restricted under section 3, or
(c) breaks any condition of a licence for the importation of any poison granted to him under section 3, shall be punishable,
--
(i) on a first conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, and
(ii) on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. (2) Any poison in respect of which an offence has been com-
mitted under this section, together with the vessels, packages or coverings in which the same is found, shall be liable to confisca- tion."
9. Besides, reliance has also been placed upon Rule 3 of the Punjab Poisons (Possession and Sales) Rules, 2014, read along with the Poisons Act, 1919, according to which, 'methanol' is included in the list of scheduled poisons at Serial No.67.
It is further submitted that any person who is not possessing licence in Form A and contravening the provisions of the Act or Rules is punishable under Section 6 of the Act, with a maximum imprisonment of three months for the first offence and up to six months in case of a repeated violation. Therefore, dealing in methanol for the preparation and sale of alcohol without a licence is punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of three months for the first instance and six months in case of JAWALA RAM 2026.04.17 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES - 11 -
repetition, as detailed and noticed here above.
10. Referring to the facts and role attributed to each of the appellants, learned Senior counsel for the appellants argued and reiterated that most of the appellants herein are implicated in the case in hand on the basis of disclosure statements, and there is no recovery of any kind of poisonous substance, viz.; 'methanol' from the possession of any of the present appellants. Therefore, appellants cannot be held responsible for the deaths that have already occurred.
It is also argued that from the genesis of the present incident, some other FIRs were also got registered at different police stations of the nearby areas and out of which, one case, i.e., FIR No.48, dated 13.05.2025, registered under Sections 103, 105, 109, 123 and 238 of BNS, 2023, Sections 61(1) and 61(2) of the Punjab Excise Act, Sections 3 & 4 of the Sc/ST Act and Section 6 of the poisons Act, 1919, was lodged at P.S. Kathunangal, District Amritsar (Rural).
Further, in support of the aforesaid contention, two bail orders of even date have been produced in Court, i.e., order dated 27.03.2026, passed in CRA-S-88-2026 (O&M), titled as, "Fanil @ Fanil Nagap @ Nomi v. State of Punjab and another" and order dated 27.03.2026, passed in CRA-S-817- 2026 (O&M), titled as, "Pankaj Kumar @ Sahil v. State of Punjab", wherein, both the appellants therein, have been granted concession of bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
Both aforesaid appellants are also accused in the present FIR and thus, accused - appellant Fanil @ Fanil Nagpal @ Nommi by way of CRA-S-3937-2025 (O&M) and accused - appellant Pankaj Kumar alias Sahil by way of CRA-S-82-2026 (O&M), are before this Court for seeking JAWALA RAM 2026.04.17 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES - 12 -
concession of bail in present FIR case.
11. Now, coming to the present case(s), it is further argued that in the present FIR case, i.e., FIR No.42 dated 13.05.2025 (supra), two of the co- accused, namely, Ravinder Kumar Jain and Rishabh Jain, have already been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide common order dated 05.12.2025, passed in CRA-S-2265-2025 & connected case, titled as "Ravinder Kumar Jain v. State of Punjab and another" . Case of the appellants herein is stated to be on better footings than that of the said co- accused, who have already been granted bail.
It is further argued and reiterated that no recovery of any kind of poisonous substance, i.e., 'methanol', has been effected from the possession of the present appellants, and implication of most of them is primarily based upon disclosure statements. Therefore, appellants cannot be directly connected with the preparation of the alleged spurious liquor or the unfortunate deaths that have occurred.
Still further, while referring to the nature of allegations and the material collected during investigation, it is submitted that the essential ingredients to attract the stringent offences alleged are not made out against the present appellants. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances, as noticed here-above, and also on the ground of parity, learned Senior counsel prayed for grant of concession of bail to the appellant(s) herein.
12. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the present appeals, submitted that about 35 persons (as stated in impugned orders) have lost their lives after consuming spurious liquor, and many FIRs have been lodged including the present case.
It is contended that the investigation has revealed involvement JAWALA RAM 2026.04.17 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES - 13 -
of multiple persons in the preparation and distribution of the said liquor, and the present appellants have also been named during the course of investigation. Therefore, their role cannot be completely segregated at this stage.
13. Learned State counsel further submitted that the implication of the appellants is based upon material collected during investigation, including disclosure statements, and the same cannot be brushed aside at this stage of consideration of bail.
However, it is not disputed that no recovery of methanol has been effected from the present appellants, and the investigation in the case stands substantially completed. It is, thus, submitted that considering the seriousness of the allegations, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.
15. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the present appeals for seeking bail have arisen out of an unfortunate incident, wherein, many persons lost their lives after consuming spurious liquor. The seriousness of the allegations and the magnitude of the incident cannot be ignored.
However, at the same time, while considering the prayer for grant of bail, the role attributed to each of the appellants is required to be examined individually, on the basis of material available on record.
From the perusal of the record, it emerges that no recovery of any kind of poisonous substance, i.e., 'methanol', has been effected from the possession of the present appellants. Their implication is primarily based upon disclosure statements and the alleged chain of distribution.
It is also a matter of record that two of the co-accused, namely, JAWALA RAM 2026.04.17 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES - 14 -
Ravinder Kumar Jain and Rishabh Jain, who are alleged to be connected with the procurement of methanol, have already been granted the concession of bail by this Court. Thus, claim of the present appellants on the ground of parity deserves due consideration.
Further, investigation in the case stands substantially completed and the challan has already been presented. The appellants are in custody for a considerable period and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude.
16. Without commenting upon the merits of the case; and considering the nature of allegations; role attributed to the each of the appellants, absence of recovery from them, as well as the principle of parity, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants have made out a case for grant of concession of bail.
17. Consequently, common prayer for bail made in all the appeals is allowed. Appellants herein, i.e., (i) Gurmeet Singh @ Sabba, (ii) Fanil @ Fanil Nagpal @ Nommi, (iii) Arvind Kumar, (iv) Pankaj Kumar alias Sahil,
(v) Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma, (vi) Ninder Kaur @ Ninder, (vii) Sahib Singh alias Rayi, and (viii) Gurjant Singh alias Janta, are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
18. Needless to observe that the appellant(s) shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
19. The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. JAWALA RAM 2026.04.17 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-S-2580-2025 & CONNECTED CASES - 15 -
20. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioners are directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.
21. Since a large number of people have lost their lives and might have suffered physical disabilities because of consumption of the spurious liquor, being it a case of peculiar circumstances, it is necessary to observe that in future, if any fresh evidence is collected by the prosecution regarding the involvement of the appellants directly or indirectly attributing the cause of death involved in the present case, it will be open for the prosecution/victim(s) to move an application for recalling of the present bail order.
22. With the reasons recorded here-above, instant appeals stand disposed of.
Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 17, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.04.17 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document