CRM-M-6373 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 204 Gurwinder Singh State of Punjab Coram : Present: Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. 1. Prayer in the present BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.115 dated 20.07.2023, registered under Sections 302, 323, 148 and 149 of the IPC, 1860 (Section 325 of the IPC, 1860 added later on), at Poli Bathinda, District Bathinda. 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the lodged on the statement of complainant Jagsir Singh, in which he alleged that he had two children. The elder son Jashandeep Sing whereas the younger to him is his daughter Gagandeep Kaur, who was unmarried. On 18.07.2023, at about 05.00 pm, he receiv information that his son Jashandeep Singh had been injured during a fight and had been take information, he rushed to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda, where his son Jashandeep Singh told him that Ranjit Singh (petitioner herein) unknown persons, caused him injuries with baseball bats and 6373-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurwinder Singh Versus Punjab Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. JPS Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner (through VC). Mr. R.K. Singh, AAG, Punjab. **** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. Prayer in the present second petition, filed under Section BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.115 dated 20.07.2023, registered under Sections 302, 323, 148 and 149 of the IPC, 1860 (Section 325 of the IPC, 1860 added later on), at Poli Bathinda, District Bathinda. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the lodged on the statement of complainant Jagsir Singh, in which he alleged that he had two children. The elder son Jashandeep Sing whereas the younger to him is his daughter Gagandeep Kaur, who was unmarried. On 18.07.2023, at about 05.00 pm, he receiv information that his son Jashandeep Singh had been injured during a fight and had been taken to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda. On receiving information, he rushed to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda, where his son Jashandeep Singh told him that Ranjit Singh (petitioner herein) and Amanjeet Singh alias Amana, along wi unknown persons, caused him injuries with baseball bats and - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6373-2025 Decided on:02.08.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj . petition, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.115 dated 20.07.2023, registered under Sections 302, 323, 148 and 149 of the IPC, 1860 (Section 325 of the IPC, 1860 added later on), at Police Station Sadar, Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was lodged on the statement of complainant Jagsir Singh, in which he alleged that he had two children. The elder son Jashandeep Singh was aged about 20 years, whereas the younger to him is his daughter Gagandeep Kaur, who was unmarried. On 18.07.2023, at about 05.00 pm, he received a telephonic information that his son Jashandeep Singh had been injured during a fight and Hospital, Bathinda. On receiving the said information, he rushed to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda, where his son Jashandeep Singh told him that Ranjit Singh, Gurwinder Singh @ Guri and Amanjeet Singh alias Amana, along with 10-12 other unknown persons, caused him injuries with baseball bats and daang. His son ...Petitioner ...Respondent 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.115 dated 20.07.2023, registered under Sections 302, 323, 148 and 149 of the IPC, ce Station Sadar, FIR in the present case was lodged on the statement of complainant Jagsir Singh, in which he alleged that h was aged about 20 years, whereas the younger to him is his daughter Gagandeep Kaur, who was a telephonic information that his son Jashandeep Singh had been injured during a fight and the said information, he rushed to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda, where his son Gurwinder Singh @ Guri 12 other . His son VINOD KUMAR 2025.08.13 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6373 was thereafter referred to Badiyal Hospital, Bathinda where he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the request was made to take legal action against all the culprits. On registration of the petitioner was stated to be arrested on agencies collected various evidences and on completion of the investigation, the challan was presented. The learned t commenced with the trial. The petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda both the sides, the learned trial Court declined the same vide or 22.02.2024. Hence, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner Court for grant of regular bail by way of filing CRM the same was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide its order dated 20.08.2024 on the r again before this Court for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in t occurrence, as alleged, in the present case had taken place on 18.07.2023, whereas the FIR had been lodged after a delay of two days, i.e. on 20.07.2023. It is submitted that the complainant had alleged that the by 13-15 accused persons, whereas there are only five injuries person of the deceased and, thus, the ocular version is not medically corroborated. He further submitted that it is the petitioner who had shifted the deceased to the hospital and from the admission/medical record, the said fact is evident. He further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since 23.07.2023 and since the trial is not making any headway, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be rele 6373-2025 was thereafter referred to Badiyal Hospital, Bathinda where he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the request was made to take legal action against all the On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced was stated to be arrested on 23.07.2023 agencies collected various evidences and on completion of the investigation, the challan was presented. The learned trial Court, on framing commenced with the trial. The petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda praying for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court declined the same vide or . Hence, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner Court for grant of regular bail by way of filing CRM the same was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide its order dated 20.08.2024 on the request of counsel for the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is again before this Court for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR case. He submitted that the occurrence, as alleged, in the present case had taken place on 18.07.2023, whereas the FIR had been lodged after a delay of two days, i.e. on 20.07.2023. It is submitted that the complainant had alleged that the accused persons, whereas there are only five injuries person of the deceased and, thus, the ocular version is not medically corroborated. He further submitted that it is the petitioner who had shifted the ased to the hospital and from the admission/medical record, the said fact is evident. He further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since 23.07.2023 and since the trial is not making any headway, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. - 2 - was thereafter referred to Badiyal Hospital, Bathinda where he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the request was made to take legal action against all the , the investigation commenced and the 23.07.2023 and the investigating agencies collected various evidences and on completion of the investigation, rial Court, on framing of the charges, commenced with the trial. The petitioner approached the learned Additional praying for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court declined the same vide order dated . Hence, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court for grant of regular bail by way of filing CRM-M-39017-2024, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide its order dated equest of counsel for the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is again before this Court for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has he present FIR case. He submitted that the occurrence, as alleged, in the present case had taken place on 18.07.2023, whereas the FIR had been lodged after a delay of two days, i.e. on 20.07.2023. It is submitted that the complainant had alleged that the deceased was assaulted accused persons, whereas there are only five injuries found on the person of the deceased and, thus, the ocular version is not medically corroborated. He further submitted that it is the petitioner who had shifted the ased to the hospital and from the admission/medical record, the said fact is evident. He further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since 23.07.2023 and since the trial is not making any headway, therefore, the ased on regular bail. was thereafter referred to Badiyal Hospital, Bathinda where he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the request was made to take legal action against all the and the and the investigating agencies collected various evidences and on completion of the investigation, the charges, Additional praying for grant of bail. However, after hearing der dated approached this 2024, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide its order dated equest of counsel for the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is again before this Court for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has he present FIR case. He submitted that the occurrence, as alleged, in the present case had taken place on 18.07.2023, whereas the FIR had been lodged after a delay of two days, i.e. on 20.07.2023. deceased was assaulted found on the person of the deceased and, thus, the ocular version is not medically corroborated. He further submitted that it is the petitioner who had shifted the ased to the hospital and from the admission/medical record, the said fact is evident. He further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since 23.07.2023 and since the trial is not making any headway, therefore, the VINOD KUMAR 2025.08.13 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6373 4. Per contra, submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR who, along with other co accused, had submitted that the petitioner had duly participated in the commission of offence and as the trial is progressing on a fast pace, thus, the present petition deserves dismissal. 5. available record, it is deciphered that the in the FIR along with other co persons of the deceased. The FIR had been lo none else but the father of the deceased, on the statement of the deceased himself who was in injured condition at that time, who had thereafter succumbed to the injuries caused by the petitioner and his co 6. circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for the grant of bail at this stage and hence, the present petition, being denuded of any merit, is he 7. on the merits of the case. August 02, 2025 vinod* 6373-2025 Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR who, along with other co accused, had caused the murder of the deceased Jashandeep Singh. It is submitted that the petitioner had duly participated in the commission of offence and as the trial is progressing on a fast pace, thus, the present petition deserves After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is deciphered that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR along with other co-accused who had caused multiple injuries on the persons of the deceased. The FIR had been lo none else but the father of the deceased, on the statement of the deceased himself who was in injured condition at that time, who had thereafter succumbed to the injuries caused by the petitioner and his co Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and all the attending circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for the grant of bail at this stage and hence, the present petition, being denuded of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. , 2025 Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Whether Reportable: - 3 - learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR who, along with other co caused the murder of the deceased Jashandeep Singh. It is submitted that the petitioner had duly participated in the commission of offence and as the trial is progressing on a fast pace, thus, the present petition deserves learned counsel for the parties and perusing the petitioner has been specifically named accused who had caused multiple injuries on the persons of the deceased. The FIR had been lodged by the complainant, who is none else but the father of the deceased, on the statement of the deceased himself who was in injured condition at that time, who had thereafter succumbed to the injuries caused by the petitioner and his co-accused. ping in view the gravity of the offence and all the attending circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for the grant of bail at this stage and hence, the present petition, reby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion (Rajesh Bhardwaj) Judge Whether Speaking/Reasoned: NO/YES NO/YES learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR who, along with other co- caused the murder of the deceased Jashandeep Singh. It is submitted that the petitioner had duly participated in the commission of offence and as the trial is progressing on a fast pace, thus, the present petition deserves learned counsel for the parties and perusing the petitioner has been specifically named accused who had caused multiple injuries on the dged by the complainant, who is none else but the father of the deceased, on the statement of the deceased himself who was in injured condition at that time, who had thereafter ping in view the gravity of the offence and all the attending circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for the grant of bail at this stage and hence, the present petition, Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion VINOD KUMAR 2025.08.13 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document