CRM-M-48271- 207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. K.S.Brar 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 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 Section 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added District Bathinda. 2. The present FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021 was registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, on the statement of the complainant Singh, who alleged that due to a long between him and his brother Darshan Sin 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 Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. K.S.Brar, 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, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the 59, (later on Section 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. he present FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021 was registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, on the statement of the complainant 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-48271-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , 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 petitioner in case FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021, registered under Sections 452, 302, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections , registered at Police Station Maur, he 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 gh, 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 petitioner in case FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021, registered under Sections 452, 302, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections , registered at Police Station Maur, he present FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021 was registered at Police Gurbhai standing land dispute and demarcation gh, a quarrel had taken place earlier in the accused Gopi, Lucky TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.10 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48271- Pandit, Kiddu, Raghveer Si person, came to the house of the complainant. As pe Raghveer Singh and Lucky Pandit were armed with 12 bore guns 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 atte deflect the barrel, resulting in an injury to his hand, whereas Ravinder Sin Lali 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 tak 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 and 54/59 of the Arms Act. 3. Subseq General Diary Entry (DDR), wherein the complainant categorically stated that the identity of the previously unknown person involved in the occurrence had come to his knowledge and the said unknown ac alias Ramna, son of Paramjit Singh, resident of Pratap Nagar, Bathinda. In the said DDR, it is alleged that Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna was present at the spot along with the other named accused during the occurrence them in furtherance of their common intention. On the basis of the said DDR and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the name of the petitioner Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna was specifically nominated as an accused in the present case, a -2025 (O&M) Pandit, Kiddu, Raghveer Singh and Ravinder Singh alias La person, came to the house of the complainant. As pe Raghveer Singh and Lucky Pandit were armed with 12 bore guns li was armed with a pistol. It is alleged that Lucky Pandit aimed his gun towards the complainant party, during which the complainant atte deflect the barrel, resulting in an injury to his hand, whereas Ravinder Sin li allegedly fired directly at Parampreet Singh alias Garry, son of the complainant, causing fatal gunshot injuries. Darshan Singh is alleged to have nd 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, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, with subsequent addition of Sections 201 IPC and 54/59 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, a supplementary statement was recorded by way of General Diary Entry (DDR), wherein the complainant categorically stated that the identity of the previously unknown person involved in the occurrence had come to his knowledge and the said unknown accused was identified as Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna, son of Paramjit Singh, resident of Pratap Nagar, Bathinda. In the said DDR, it is alleged that Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna was present at the spot along with the other named accused during the occurrence them in furtherance of their common intention. On the basis of the said DDR and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the name of the petitioner Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna was specifically nominated as an accused in the present case, a -2- ngh 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 li 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 li allegedly fired directly at Parampreet Singh alias Garry, son of the complainant, causing fatal gunshot injuries. Darshan Singh is alleged to have nd 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 en 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 uently, a supplementary statement was recorded by way of General Diary Entry (DDR), wherein the complainant categorically stated that the identity of the previously unknown person involved in the occurrence had come to cused was identified as Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna, son of Paramjit Singh, resident of Pratap Nagar, Bathinda. In the said DDR, it is alleged that Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna was present at the spot along with the other named accused during the occurrence and had accompanied them in furtherance of their common intention. On the basis of the said DDR and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the name of the petitioner Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna was specifically nominated as an accused in the present case, a li, and one unknown r the prosecution version, , while Ravinder li was armed with a pistol. It is alleged that Lucky Pandit aimed his mpted to gh alias li allegedly fired directly at Parampreet Singh alias Garry, son of the complainant, causing fatal gunshot injuries. Darshan Singh is alleged to have nd 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 en 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 uently, a supplementary statement was recorded by way of General Diary Entry (DDR), wherein the complainant categorically stated that the identity of the previously unknown person involved in the occurrence had come to cused was identified as Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna, son of Paramjit Singh, resident of Pratap Nagar, Bathinda. In the said DDR, it is alleged that Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna was present at the spot and had accompanied them in furtherance of their common intention. On the basis of the said DDR and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the name of the petitioner Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna was specifically nominated as an accused in the present case, and TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.10 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48271- proceedings for his arrest were initiated, attributing to him the role of being part of the unlawful assembly involved in the commission of the alleged offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR months in the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is further contended that even as per the prosecution version, the fatal gunshot injury has been specifically attributed to co custody. Learned counsel submits that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.02.2024; however, subsequent material changes have taken pla prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, have since been examined. It is further pointed out that co allegedly armed with a firearm and attributed a rol been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025, and co-accused Avtar Singh alias Gopi, who was alleged to be present at the spot along with other accused, has also been granted bail by this Cou 14.10.2025. Learned counsel submits that the role attributed to the present petitioner is at par, if not better, than the said co .12 bore firearm or any other weapon has been effected from the petitioner 5. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, today in Court, which is taken on record application and submits that although the petitioner was not named in the FIR, he has been specifically nominated in the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is contended that the present case pertains to the murder of the sole son of the complainant, allegedly at the hands of his own real uncle Darshan Singh, -2025 (O&M) proceedings for his arrest were initiated, attributing to him the role of being part of the unlawful assembly involved in the commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name surfaced for the first time after a gap of about nine months in the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is further contended that even as per the prosecution version, the fatal gunshot injury has been y attributed to co-accused Ravinder Singh alias Lal custody. Learned counsel submits that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.02.2024; however, subsequent material changes have taken place thereafter. It is argued that material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, have since been examined. It is further pointed out that co-accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit, who was allegedly armed with a firearm and attributed a rol been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025, accused Avtar Singh alias Gopi, who was alleged to be present at the spot along with other accused, has also been granted bail by this Cou 14.10.2025. Learned counsel submits that the role attributed to the present petitioner is at par, if not better, than the said co .12 bore firearm or any other weapon has been effected from the petitioner Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, today in Court, which is taken on record application and submits that although the petitioner was not named in the FIR, he has been specifically nominated in the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is contended that the present case pertains to the murder of the sole on of the complainant, allegedly at the hands of his own real uncle Darshan Singh, -3- proceedings for his arrest were initiated, attributing to him the role of being part of the unlawful assembly involved in the commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not and his name surfaced for the first time after a gap of about nine months in the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is further contended that even as per the prosecution version, the fatal gunshot injury has been Singh alias Lali, who is presently in custody. Learned counsel submits that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.02.2024; however, ce thereafter. It is argued that material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, have since been examined. It is accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit, who was allegedly armed with a firearm and attributed a role of aiming the weapon, has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025, accused Avtar Singh alias Gopi, who was alleged to be present at the spot along with other accused, has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025. Learned counsel submits that the role attributed to the present petitioner is at par, if not better, than the said co-accused, and no recovery of any .12 bore firearm or any other weapon has been effected from the petitioner. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, today in Court, which is taken on record. He opposes the bail application and submits that although the petitioner was not named in the FIR, he has been specifically nominated in the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is contended that the present case pertains to the murder of the sole on of the complainant, allegedly at the hands of his own real uncle Darshan Singh, proceedings for his arrest were initiated, attributing to him the role of being part of Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not and his name surfaced for the first time after a gap of about nine months in the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is further contended that even as per the prosecution version, the fatal gunshot injury has been i, who is presently in custody. Learned counsel submits that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.02.2024; however, ce thereafter. It is argued that material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, have since been examined. It is accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit, who was e of aiming the weapon, has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025, accused Avtar Singh alias Gopi, who was alleged to be present at the spot rt vide order dated 14.10.2025. Learned counsel submits that the role attributed to the present accused, and no recovery of any Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the opposes the bail application and submits that although the petitioner was not named in the FIR, he has been specifically nominated in the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is contended that the present case pertains to the murder of the sole on of the complainant, allegedly at the hands of his own real uncle Darshan Singh, TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.10 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48271- and the petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly formed to commit the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that the CCTV footage shows the presence of the bore gun, and therefore, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. The fatal shot result alias Garry is attributed to co in custody. No specific role of firing the fatal shot is attributed to the present petitioner. No doubt, the earlier bail a Coordinate Be developments inasmuch as material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, have already been examined. It is also a matte accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit and Avtar Singh alias Gopi have since been granted bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court after noticing that the material witnesses stand examined. The case of the present petitioner stands better footing, as he was not named in the FIR, his nomination is based on a subsequent supplementary statement, and no recovery of any .12 bore firearm or weapon has been effected from him. 8. In view of the above circumstances and period undergone by the petitioner i.e. 02 years, with the fact the trial on the merits of the case deserves the concession of regular bail. -2025 (O&M) and the petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly formed to commit the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that the CCTV footage shows the petitioner at the spot and that he is allegedly seen brandishing a .12 bore gun, and therefore, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the The fatal shot resulting in the death of the deceased Parampreet Singh attributed to co-accused Ravinder alias Lali, who continues to remain in custody. No specific role of firing the fatal shot is attributed to the present petitioner. No doubt, the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.02.2024, developments inasmuch as material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, have already been examined. It is also a matte accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit and Avtar Singh alias Gopi have since been granted bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court after noticing that the material witnesses stand examined. The case of the present petitioner stands better footing, as he was not named in the FIR, his nomination is based on a subsequent supplementary statement, and no recovery of any .12 bore firearm or weapon has been effected from him. In view of the above circumstances and period undergone by the petitioner i.e. 02 years, with the fact the trial is likely to take some time, on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view deserves the concession of regular bail. -4- and the petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly formed to commit the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that the CCTV footage shows the petitioner at the spot and that he is allegedly seen brandishing a .12 bore gun, and therefore, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the ing in the death of the deceased Parampreet Singh nder alias Lali, who continues to remain in custody. No specific role of firing the fatal shot is attributed to the present application of the petitioner was dismissed by nch of this Court on 27.02.2024, however, there are subsequent developments inasmuch as material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, have already been examined. It is also a matter of record that co accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit and Avtar Singh alias Gopi have since been granted bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court after noticing that the material witnesses stand examined. The case of the present petitioner stands on a better footing, as he was not named in the FIR, his nomination is based on a subsequent supplementary statement, and no recovery of any .12 bore firearm or In view of the above circumstances and keeping in view the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e. 02 years, 11 months and 02 days coupled to take some time, without expressing any opinion this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner and the petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly formed to commit the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that the CCTV footage shows the petitioner at the spot and that he is allegedly seen brandishing a .12 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the ing in the death of the deceased Parampreet Singh nder alias Lali, who continues to remain in custody. No specific role of firing the fatal shot is attributed to the present application of the petitioner was dismissed by however, there are subsequent developments inasmuch as material prosecution witnesses, including the r of record that co- accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit and Avtar Singh alias Gopi have since been granted bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court after noticing that the on a better footing, as he was not named in the FIR, his nomination is based on a subsequent supplementary statement, and no recovery of any .12 bore firearm or custody coupled without expressing any opinion that the petitioner TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.10 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48271- 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned 10. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 10, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the 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 -5- Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds 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