IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA LOVEPREET SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Ms. G.K. Mann Ms. Armandeep Kaur Sidhu, Advocate Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant. MANISHA BATRA 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. Sections 302, 307, 379 of Arms Act, at Police Station 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Harminder Singh alleging therein t his wife was Sarpranch of Village Dehar. On the same day i.e. on 03.01.2022, some officials from Mandikaran Board came to his village for survey of the streets. He was accompanying them. They had visited the area near the Church and while returning bac accused who told him that they would not let the booth of Congress Party (to which the complainant was affiliated) set in the village and also threatened that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Reserved on : 08.05.2025 Pronounced on LOVEPREET SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Ms. G.K. Mann, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Armandeep Kaur Sidhu, Advocate Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant. **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.1 dated 302, 307, 379-B, 201, 120-B, 34, 473 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 at Police Station Kotli Surat Mallian, Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Harminder Singh alleging therein t his wife was Sarpranch of Village Dehar. On the same day i.e. on 03.01.2022, some officials from Mandikaran Board came to his village for survey of the streets. He was accompanying them. They had visited the area near the Church and while returning back, he was called by the pr who told him that they would not let the booth of Congress Party (to which the complainant was affiliated) set in the village and also threatened that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.5017 of 2025 Reserved on : 08.05.2025 Pronounced on: 09.05.2025 …. Petitioner …. Respondent MANISHA BATRA with Ms. Armandeep Kaur Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. . Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of dated 03.01.2022 registered under B, 34, 473 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 tli Surat Mallian, District Gurdaspur. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Harminder Singh alleging therein that his wife was Sarpranch of Village Dehar. On the same day i.e. on 03.01.2022, some officials from Mandikaran Board came to his village for survey of the streets. He was accompanying them. They had visited the area near the Church k, he was called by the present petitioner and co- who told him that they would not let the booth of Congress Party (to which the complainant was affiliated) set in the village and also threatened that The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of registered under B, 34, 473 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of hat his wife was Sarpranch of Village Dehar. On the same day i.e. on 03.01.2022, some officials from Mandikaran Board came to his village for survey of the streets. He was accompanying them. They had visited the area near the Church - who told him that they would not let the booth of Congress Party (to which the complainant was affiliated) set in the village and also threatened that Jyoti 2025.05.12 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM the complainant would be able to construct streets only if he would remain alive. Without giving any response, the complainant came back to his house. He alleged that on the same evening, the victim Dilpreet Singh who was grandson of his uncle visited his friend namely Saurav. After having tea etc., the complainant along with the victim and his friend Saurav took him outside the house to show the development work done in the village and when they had reached near Boh the petitioner and co Swift car bearing registration No. PB pistols. They started hurling abuses. The victim tried to take out his licensed revolver but the petitioner two shots upon the victim. shoulder and right thigh of the complainant, he too fell down on the ground 3. As per the further allegations, on raising re assailants fled away. The injured were rushed to the hospital but the victim Dilpreet had succumbed to the injuries. The complainant prayed for taking action by alleging that due to political rivalry, the petitioner and co had assaulted them and killed his nephew. 4. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on completed. The petitioner had moved an application for grant of which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide order dated 5. It is falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of 12 CRM-M No.5017 of 2025 the complainant would be able to construct streets only if he would remain alive. Without giving any response, the complainant came back to his house. He alleged that on the same evening, the victim Dilpreet Singh who was grandson of his uncle visited his home along with his wife, mother and one friend namely Saurav. After having tea etc., the complainant along with the victim and his friend Saurav took him outside the house to show the development work done in the village and when they had reached near Boh the petitioner and co-accused Peter @ Nindu Swift car bearing registration No. PB-06-Z- pistols. They started hurling abuses. The victim tried to take out his licensed revolver but the petitioner caught hold of him and then the co two shots upon the victim. The petitioner fired shot right thigh of the complainant, he too fell down on the ground As per the further allegations, on raising re assailants fled away. The injured were rushed to the hospital but the victim Dilpreet had succumbed to the injuries. The complainant prayed for taking action by alleging that due to political rivalry, the petitioner and co had assaulted them and killed his nephew. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 07.11.2022. The investigation has since been completed. The petitioner had moved an application for grant of which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide order dated 03.12.2024. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of 12 M No.5017 of 2025 -2- the complainant would be able to construct streets only if he would remain alive. Without giving any response, the complainant came back to his house. He alleged that on the same evening, the victim Dilpreet Singh who was home along with his wife, mother and one friend namely Saurav. After having tea etc., the complainant along with the victim and his friend Saurav took him outside the house to show the development work done in the village and when they had reached near Bohar, intercepted them by stopping a -4550. They were armed with pistols. They started hurling abuses. The victim tried to take out his licensed caught hold of him and then the co-accused fired fired shots thereby injuring the left right thigh of the complainant, he too fell down on the ground. As per the further allegations, on raising rescue alarm by Saurav, the assailants fled away. The injured were rushed to the hospital but the victim Dilpreet had succumbed to the injuries. The complainant prayed for taking action by alleging that due to political rivalry, the petitioner and co-accused After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. . The investigation has since been completed. The petitioner had moved an application for grant of regular bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of 12 hours in lodging of the FIR the complainant would be able to construct streets only if he would remain alive. Without giving any response, the complainant came back to his house. He alleged that on the same evening, the victim Dilpreet Singh who was home along with his wife, mother and one friend namely Saurav. After having tea etc., the complainant along with the victim and his friend Saurav took him outside the house to show the ar, intercepted them by stopping a 4550. They were armed with pistols. They started hurling abuses. The victim tried to take out his licensed accused fired thereby injuring the left scue alarm by Saurav, the assailants fled away. The injured were rushed to the hospital but the victim Dilpreet had succumbed to the injuries. The complainant prayed for taking accused After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. . The investigation has since been regular bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been hours in lodging of the FIR Jyoti 2025.05.12 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM which has not been explained. Inconsistent versions have been given by the witnesses and the FIR itself suffers from material inconsistencies. The prosecution version is improbable and unnatural. Even as per the allegations in the FIR, it was only after Dilpreet Singh, member of the complainant party attempted to draw his likely to take considerable time to conclude. He is in custody since long. The co-accused Gur deserves to be extended same benefit. His further incarceration would not serve any purpose. Accordingly, it is urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail. 6. Status report has been file that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender since 4 other cases have been registered against him. It was he who had fired shots at the victim Dilpreet Singh and had e handle of the pistol on his head. His case is not at all at parity with the case of co-accused Gurnoor Singh. There are chances of petitioner’s intimidating the witnesses or absconding if extended benefit of bail. Accordingly, it i that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 7. This Court has heard rival submission of the parties. 8. The petitioner by hatching a conspiracy and in furtherance of his common intention with the co upon victim Dilpreet Singh, complainant and PW and is further alleged to have committed murder of the victim and made attempt to kill the complainant as well as Saurav against him that he had c CRM-M No.5017 of 2025 which has not been explained. Inconsistent versions have been given by the witnesses and the FIR itself suffers from material inconsistencies. The prosecution version is improbable and unnatural. Even as per the allegations in the FIR, it was only after Dilpreet Singh, member of the complainant party attempted to draw his revolver that the petitioner had likely to take considerable time to conclude. He is in custody since long. The accused Gurnoor Singh has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended same benefit. His further incarceration would not serve any purpose. Accordingly, it is urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned State counsel that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender since 4 other cases have been registered against him. It was he who had fired shots at the victim Dilpreet Singh and had e handle of the pistol on his head. His case is not at all at parity with the case of accused Gurnoor Singh. There are chances of petitioner’s intimidating the witnesses or absconding if extended benefit of bail. Accordingly, it i that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard rival submission of the parties. The petitioner by hatching a conspiracy and in furtherance of his common intention with the co-accused is alleged to have opened an ass upon victim Dilpreet Singh, complainant and PW and is further alleged to have committed murder of the victim and made attempt to kill the complainant as well as Saurav against him that he had caused fetal injuries to the victim Dilpreet Singh by M No.5017 of 2025 -3- which has not been explained. Inconsistent versions have been given by the witnesses and the FIR itself suffers from material inconsistencies. The prosecution version is improbable and unnatural. Even as per the allegations in the FIR, it was only after Dilpreet Singh, member of the complainant party revolver that the petitioner had fired at him. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. He is in custody since long. The ingh has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended same benefit. His further incarceration would not serve any purpose. Accordingly, it is urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of d. It is argued by learned State counsel that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender since 4 other cases have been registered against him. It was he who had fired shots at the victim Dilpreet Singh and had even struck blow with the handle of the pistol on his head. His case is not at all at parity with the case of accused Gurnoor Singh. There are chances of petitioner’s intimidating the witnesses or absconding if extended benefit of bail. Accordingly, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard rival submission of the parties. The petitioner by hatching a conspiracy and in furtherance of his accused is alleged to have opened an assault upon victim Dilpreet Singh, complainant and PW-Saurav on the fateful day and is further alleged to have committed murder of the victim and made attempt to kill the complainant as well as Saurav. There are specific allegations aused fetal injuries to the victim Dilpreet Singh by which has not been explained. Inconsistent versions have been given by the witnesses and the FIR itself suffers from material inconsistencies. The prosecution version is improbable and unnatural. Even as per the allegations in the FIR, it was only after Dilpreet Singh, member of the complainant party fired at him. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. He is in custody since long. The ingh has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended same benefit. His further incarceration would not serve any purpose. Accordingly, it is urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of d. It is argued by learned State counsel that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender since 4 other cases have been registered against him. It was he who ven struck blow with the handle of the pistol on his head. His case is not at all at parity with the case of accused Gurnoor Singh. There are chances of petitioner’s intimidating the s urged The petitioner by hatching a conspiracy and in furtherance of his ault Saurav on the fateful day and is further alleged to have committed murder of the victim and made . There are specific allegations aused fetal injuries to the victim Dilpreet Singh by Jyoti 2025.05.12 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM using fire arms and had made attempt to kill the complainant in broad day light. Prolonged solitary consideration for grant of bail. allegations, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the petiti does not deserve to be allowed at this stage. Hence, the same is dismissed. 9. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous 09.05.2025 Jyoti-IV CRM-M No.5017 of 2025 using fire arms and had made attempt to kill the complainant in broad day d period of custody in such likes cases cannot be considered as solitary consideration for grant of bail. Keeping in allegations, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the petiti does not deserve to be allowed at this stage. Hence, the same is dismissed. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No M No.5017 of 2025 -4- using fire arms and had made attempt to kill the complainant in broad day period of custody in such likes cases cannot be considered as Keeping in view the nature of the allegations, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed at this stage. Hence, the same is dismissed. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No using fire arms and had made attempt to kill the complainant in broad day period of custody in such likes cases cannot be considered as view the nature of the allegations, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any on Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, Jyoti 2025.05.12 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document