CRM-M-66882- 207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kulwinder Singh alias Kindu State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate for the complainant. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. Present is the se Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 petitioner in case 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, later on Sections 201 of the In 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added, registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda. 2. The present FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021 was registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, on the statement of t Singh, who alleged that due to a long between him and his brother Darshan Singh, a quarrel had taken place earlier in the day. It is alleged that later on, Darshan Singh, along with co -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision Kulwinder Singh alias Kindu VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate for the complainant. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) Present is the second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed with a prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021, registered under Sections 452, 302, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, later on Sections 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added, registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda. The present FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021 was registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, on the statement of t Singh, who alleged that due to a long-standing land dispute and demarcation between him and his brother Darshan Singh, a quarrel had taken place earlier in the day. It is alleged that later on, Darshan Singh, along with co -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-66882-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate for the complainant. etition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya with a prayer for grant of regular bail to the FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021, registered under Sections 452, 302, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the dian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added, registered at Police Station Maur, The present FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021 was registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, on the statement of the complainant Gurbhai standing land dispute and demarcation between him and his brother Darshan Singh, a quarrel had taken place earlier in the day. It is alleged that later on, Darshan Singh, along with co-accused Gopi, Lucky etition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya with a prayer for grant of regular bail to the FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021, registered under Sections 452, 302, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the dian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added, registered at Police Station Maur, The present FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021 was registered at Police he complainant Gurbhai standing land dispute and demarcation between him and his brother Darshan Singh, a quarrel had taken place earlier in the pi, Lucky TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.10 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-66882- Pandit, Kiddu, Raghveer Sin person, came to the house of the complainant. As per the prosecution version, Raghveer Singh and Lucky Pandit were armed with 12 bore guns, while Ravinder Singh alias Lali was armed with a pistol. It is alleged that Lucky Pandit aimed his gun towards the complainant party, during which the complainant attempted to deflect the barrel, resulting in an injury to his hand, whereas Ravinder Singh alias Lalli allegedly fired di complainant, causing fatal gunshot injuries. Darshan Singh is alleged to have exhorted and facilitated the occurrence, while the remaining accused are stated to have accompanied the assailants and particip accused fled from the spot in their respective vehicles, and Parampreet Singh alias Garry was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead, leading to the registration of the present FIR under Sections 452, 302, 5 Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, with subsequent addition of Sections 201 IPC and 54/59 of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name was subsequently supplementary statement of the complainant. It is argued that even as per the prosecution case, the petitioner is not attributed any role of firing, and the fatal shot has been specifically attr is already in custody. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner claims parity with co-accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit and Avtar Singh alias Gopi, both of whom have been granted regular bail by Coordinate Benc Court, despite allegations of more serious roles against them. It is further contended that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed at a stage -2025 (O&M) Pandit, Kiddu, Raghveer Singh and Ravinder Singh alias Lal person, came to the house of the complainant. As per the prosecution version, Raghveer Singh and Lucky Pandit were armed with 12 bore guns, while Ravinder i was armed with a pistol. It is alleged that Lucky Pandit aimed his gun towards the complainant party, during which the complainant attempted to deflect the barrel, resulting in an injury to his hand, whereas Ravinder Singh alias Lalli allegedly fired directly at Parampreet Singh alias Garry, son of the complainant, causing fatal gunshot injuries. Darshan Singh is alleged to have exhorted and facilitated the occurrence, while the remaining accused are stated to have accompanied the assailants and participated in the incident. Thereafter, all the accused fled from the spot in their respective vehicles, and Parampreet Singh alias Garry was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead, leading to the registration of the present FIR under Sections 452, 302, 5 Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, with subsequent addition of Sections 201 IPC and 54/59 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name was subsequently supplementary statement of the complainant. It is argued that even as per the prosecution case, the petitioner is not attributed any role of firing, and the fatal shot has been specifically attributed to the main accused Ravi is already in custody. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner claims accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit and Avtar Singh alias Gopi, both of whom have been granted regular bail by Coordinate Benc Court, despite allegations of more serious roles against them. It is further contended that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed at a stage -2- gh and Ravinder Singh alias Lali, and one unknown person, came to the house of the complainant. As per the prosecution version, Raghveer Singh and Lucky Pandit were armed with 12 bore guns, while Ravinder i was armed with a pistol. It is alleged that Lucky Pandit aimed his gun towards the complainant party, during which the complainant attempted to deflect the barrel, resulting in an injury to his hand, whereas Ravinder Singh alias rectly at Parampreet Singh alias Garry, son of the complainant, causing fatal gunshot injuries. Darshan Singh is alleged to have exhorted and facilitated the occurrence, while the remaining accused are stated to ated in the incident. Thereafter, all the accused fled from the spot in their respective vehicles, and Parampreet Singh alias Garry was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead, leading to the registration of the present FIR under Sections 452, 302, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, with subsequent addition of Sections 201 IPC Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name was subsequently introduced on the basis of a supplementary statement of the complainant. It is argued that even as per the prosecution case, the petitioner is not attributed any role of firing, and the fatal shot ibuted to the main accused Ravinder Singh alias Lali, who is already in custody. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner claims accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit and Avtar Singh alias Gopi, both of whom have been granted regular bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court, despite allegations of more serious roles against them. It is further contended that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed at a stage i, and one unknown person, came to the house of the complainant. As per the prosecution version, Raghveer Singh and Lucky Pandit were armed with 12 bore guns, while Ravinder i was armed with a pistol. It is alleged that Lucky Pandit aimed his gun towards the complainant party, during which the complainant attempted to deflect the barrel, resulting in an injury to his hand, whereas Ravinder Singh alias rectly at Parampreet Singh alias Garry, son of the complainant, causing fatal gunshot injuries. Darshan Singh is alleged to have exhorted and facilitated the occurrence, while the remaining accused are stated to ated in the incident. Thereafter, all the accused fled from the spot in their respective vehicles, and Parampreet Singh alias Garry was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead, leading to the 06, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, with subsequent addition of Sections 201 IPC Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not introduced on the basis of a supplementary statement of the complainant. It is argued that even as per the prosecution case, the petitioner is not attributed any role of firing, and the fatal shot er Singh alias Lali, who is already in custody. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner claims accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit and Avtar Singh alias hes of this Court, despite allegations of more serious roles against them. It is further contended that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed at a stage TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.10 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-66882- when the material prosecution witnesses had not been examined, whereas now all material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and eyewitnesses, stand examined, thereby constituting a subsequent change in circumstances. On these grounds, it is submitted that the continued incarceration of the petitioner is unwarranted and he prolonged custody, and absence of a fatal role. 4. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, today in Court, which is taken on record application and submits that the case of the present petitioner is not on parity with the other co-accused who have been granted bail. It is contended that the CCTV footage clearly establishes the presence of the present petitioner at the spot at the relevant time. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly, which had assembled with a common object, and the said unlawful assembly resulted in the death of the sole son of the complainant. It is argued involving a brutal murder within the precincts of the complainant’s house, and the petitioner actively participated in the occurrence along with the other accused. On these grounds, it is submitted that t regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. The petitioner has been in custody for a period of three years, three months and twenty has not been attributed to the present petitioner but stands specifically attributed to the main accused Darshan Singh, who is alleged to have caused the death of his -2025 (O&M) when the material prosecution witnesses had not been examined, whereas now all aterial prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and eyewitnesses, stand examined, thereby constituting a subsequent change in circumstances. On these grounds, it is submitted that the continued incarceration of the petitioner is unwarranted and he deserves the concession of regular bail on the ground of parity, prolonged custody, and absence of a fatal role. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, today in Court, which is taken on record application and submits that the case of the present petitioner is not on parity with accused who have been granted bail. It is contended that the CCTV footage clearly establishes the presence of the present petitioner at the spot at the relevant time. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly, which had assembled with a common object, and the said unlawful assembly resulted in the death of the sole son of the complainant. It is argued that the offence is of a grave and heinous nature, involving a brutal murder within the precincts of the complainant’s house, and the petitioner actively participated in the occurrence along with the other accused. On these grounds, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the The petitioner has been in custody for a period of three years, three months and twenty-four days. The fatal shot resulting in the death of the deceased has not been attributed to the present petitioner but stands specifically attributed to the main accused Darshan Singh, who is alleged to have caused the death of his -3- when the material prosecution witnesses had not been examined, whereas now all aterial prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and eyewitnesses, stand examined, thereby constituting a subsequent change in circumstances. On these grounds, it is submitted that the continued incarceration of the petitioner is deserves the concession of regular bail on the ground of parity, Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, today in Court, which is taken on record. He has opposed the bail application and submits that the case of the present petitioner is not on parity with accused who have been granted bail. It is contended that the CCTV footage clearly establishes the presence of the present petitioner at the spot at the relevant time. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly, which had assembled with a common object, and the said unlawful assembly resulted in the death of the sole son of the that the offence is of a grave and heinous nature, involving a brutal murder within the precincts of the complainant’s house, and the petitioner actively participated in the occurrence along with the other accused. On he petitioner does not deserve the concession of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the The petitioner has been in custody for a period of three years, three al shot resulting in the death of the deceased has not been attributed to the present petitioner but stands specifically attributed to the main accused Darshan Singh, who is alleged to have caused the death of his when the material prosecution witnesses had not been examined, whereas now all aterial prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and eyewitnesses, stand examined, thereby constituting a subsequent change in circumstances. On these grounds, it is submitted that the continued incarceration of the petitioner is deserves the concession of regular bail on the ground of parity, Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the bail application and submits that the case of the present petitioner is not on parity with accused who have been granted bail. It is contended that the CCTV footage clearly establishes the presence of the present petitioner at the spot at the relevant time. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly, which had assembled with a common object, and the said unlawful assembly resulted in the death of the sole son of the that the offence is of a grave and heinous nature, involving a brutal murder within the precincts of the complainant’s house, and the petitioner actively participated in the occurrence along with the other accused. On he petitioner does not deserve the concession of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the The petitioner has been in custody for a period of three years, three al shot resulting in the death of the deceased has not been attributed to the present petitioner but stands specifically attributed to the main accused Darshan Singh, who is alleged to have caused the death of his TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.10 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-66882- own nephew. The prosecution does not attri petitioner, nor is it the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was armed with any weapon at the time of the occurrence. 7. It is also a matter of record that co Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit have already been granted the concession of regular bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court. The case of the present petitioner stands on a better footing, as he is neither the main accused nor is he attributed the role of causing dismissed at a stage when material prosecution witnesses had not been examined; however, subsequent material developments have taken place inasmuch as material prosecution witnesses, inc 8. Keeping in view the period of custody, the absence of any specific role of firing, the fact that the petitioner is not the main accused, and the principle of parity with co the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be releas regular bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned 10. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 10, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) own nephew. The prosecution does not attribute any role of firing to the present petitioner, nor is it the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was armed with any weapon at the time of the occurrence. It is also a matter of record that co- Singh alias Lucky Pandit have already been granted the concession of regular bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court. The case of the present petitioner stands on a better footing, as he is neither the main accused nor is he attributed the the fatal injury. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed at a stage when material prosecution witnesses had not been examined; however, subsequent material developments have taken place inasmuch as material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, stand examined. Keeping in view the period of custody, the absence of any specific role of firing, the fact that the petitioner is not the main accused, and the principle of parity with co-accused who have already been released the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be releas regular bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- bute any role of firing to the present petitioner, nor is it the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was armed with -accused Avtar Singh alias Gopi and Singh alias Lucky Pandit have already been granted the concession of regular bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court. The case of the present petitioner stands on a better footing, as he is neither the main accused nor is he attributed the the fatal injury. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed at a stage when material prosecution witnesses had not been examined; however, subsequent material developments have taken place inasmuch as material luding the complainant, stand examined. Keeping in view the period of custody, the absence of any specific role of firing, the fact that the petitioner is not the main accused, and the principle accused who have already been released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned . All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No bute any role of firing to the present petitioner, nor is it the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was armed with accused Avtar Singh alias Gopi and Singh alias Lucky Pandit have already been granted the concession of regular bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court. The case of the present petitioner stands on a better footing, as he is neither the main accused nor is he attributed the the fatal injury. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed at a stage when material prosecution witnesses had not been examined; however, subsequent material developments have taken place inasmuch as material Keeping in view the period of custody, the absence of any specific role of firing, the fact that the petitioner is not the main accused, and the principle on bail, this Court is of Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the ed on regular bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.10 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document