1 CRA-S-1936-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CRA-S-1936-2026 (O&M) MANDEEP SINGH APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT 1 The date when the judgment was reserved 24.08.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.08.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.08.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Argued by: Mr. Vikasdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG Punjab. Mr. Rajpal Singh, Advocate for the complainant. *** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. 1. The appeal challenges order dated 07.01.2026 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which application for regular bail of the appellant in FIR No.50 dated 06.05.2020 under Sections 302, 307, 323, 326, 324, 341, 188, 506, 148, 149, 120-B IPC, Sections 51, 54 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Passiana, District Patiala, Punjab was dismissed. 2. The case was registered on statement of Yadwinder Singh, who alleged that on 05.05.2020, he along with his brother Bhupinder Singh HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.08.27 20:47 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRA-S-1936-2026 (O&M) and cousin-Balwinder Singh was returning to Village Passiana from Patiala in his car, which Bhupinder Singh was driving. At about 08:30 P.M., when they reached under by-pass flyover, a silver Swift car came from the front and hit their car. Their car stopped and in the light of the car, he saw Krishan Kumar alias Chicha s/o Khila Ram, Varinder Singh s/o Balvir Singh and Manjit Singh alias Bittu Gujjer s/o Dayal Ram, Gurmeet Singh s/o Ajmer Singh, Kulwinder Singh s/o Karnail Singh, all residents of Village Passiana, armed with swords and knives, alighting from the car. They attacked them, broke the windowpanes of the car, caught his brother Bhupinder Singh, dragged him out. Thereafter, Krishan Kumar alias Chicha and Manjit Singh alias Bittu Gujjer, who were armed with swords stabbed his brother Bhupinder Singh in the abdomen and others also attacked him with swords and knives. During this period, two more cars reached the spot carrying Lakhi s/o Prithi Ram, Mandeep Singh, Sandeep Singh s/o Jagdish Ram, Meshi s/o Jaisi Ram, Gurmeet Singh s/o Ajmer Singh, Nindi s/o Karnail Singh, Jagtar Singh s/o Kesar Singh, resident of Village Passiana, Preet Saini, Harinder Mahal both residents of Village Korjiwala and Rupi, resident of Village Dhablan, who accompanied with other persons, armed with swords, sticks and deadly weapons, came out of their respective cars. They too attacked his brother Bhupinder Singh, who was lying on the ground. He and Balwinder Singh tried to save him but they too were attacked with sticks and kirpan. Varinder Singh, in order to kill him, gave a sword blow on his head which he resisted and the sword hit his right arm. Balwinder Singh too was injured. When they raised cries of “Maar Ditta Maar Ditta”, the assailants fled from the spot along with their respective weapons and cars. They were admitted in the hospital. His brother Bhupinder Singh, who was referred to PGI, succumbed to his injuries. Motive of the occurrence was that his brother-Bhupinder Singh was Sarpanch HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.08.27 20:47 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CRA-S-1936-2026 (O&M) of the village. During elections, he was supported by Krishan Kumar alias Chicha party, who wanted him to disburse grants, given to the Village, to them but Bhupinder Singh refused to do so. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was not named in the FIR. He had no previous criminal record and had clean antecedents. He was involved only due to political vendetta on supplementary statement of the complainant after delay of 10 days. Further, appellant was found innocent during investigation, he was summoned by way of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. although there was no specific role attributed to him. Appellant was not even present at the scene of occurrence at the time of incident and was present at his workplace. Allegations levelled against him were general, omnibus, without any specific attribution. Primary role of causing fatal injuries was attributed to Krishan Kumar alias Chicha and Manjit Singh alias Bittu. Appellant was in custody w.e.f. 19.09.2025. Therefore, he deserved to be released on regular bail. 4. Custody certificate dated 22.08.2026 and status report by way of affidavit of Mr. Fateh Singh Brar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub- Division Samana, District Patiala on behalf of respondent-State has been filed. The same is made part of the record. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposes the prayer for regular bail submitting that appellant was named in the FIR. Though, he was found innocent during investigation, he was summoned by the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The order of learned Trial Court summoning the appellant was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Release of appellant on regular bail would pose imminent threat to the complainant. Application regarding threats extended to the witnesses was already moved before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala. Appellant, therefore, did not deserve the concession of regular bail. HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.08.27 20:47 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 CRA-S-1936-2026 (O&M) 5. Though, co-accused namely Krishan Kumar alias Chicha and Mandeep Singh alias Bittu Gujjer have been allowed regular bail by this Court, appellant cannot claim parity as bail was allowed to co-accused on the ground of prolonged incarceration. Period of custody undergone by the appellant (01 year) cannot be considered prolonged, considering the maximum sentence provided under Section 302 IPC. Appellant allegedly was a member of an unlawful assembly which brutally attacked the deceased, who was knocked down by co-accused, with deadly weapons. Considering the nature and substance of allegations against the appellant, the role attributed to him, the 31 injuries caused which led to death of Bhupinder Singh, the quantum of punishment conviction may entail and the seriousness and gravity of the charge, it is not a fit case to enlarge the appellant on regular bail. As such, there is no error apparent on the face of the order deserving interference in appeal. 6. The appeal stands dismissed. 7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 27.08.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.08.27 20:47 I agree to specified portions of this document