IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.12697 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.08.2025 Reserved on: 07.08.2025 Sanjeev Kumar @ Happy ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocate, for son of the victim. *** MANISHA BATRA , J. 1. The instant one is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.182 dated 25.08.2018 registered under Sections 302, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural. The previous petition as filed by him bearing CRM-M No.57553 of 2023, had been dismisssed vide order dated 09.09.2024. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Vijay Kumar Malhotra on 25.08.2018 alleging that on the night of 24.08.2018, preparations were MANJU 2025.08.13 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.12697 of 2025 (O&M) -2- being made at his house to celebrate the birthday of his daughter-in-law. Five-six families had been invited for that purpose. At the same time, his nephew Honey Malhotra had a verbal altercation with Rishal Saini and Rajdeep Saini at Valmik chowk. His nephew had come to his house. Ten- fifteen minutes thereafter, the petitioner-Sanjeev Kumar @ Happy along with co-accused Sanjiv Kumar @ Lovely, Rishal Saini, Rajdeep Saini, Kiran Kumar, Pargat Singh, Krishna Arora, Honey Singh, Rajinder Singh, Rakesh Kumar and 7-8 unknown persons came in front of his house. They were armed with weapons. They were making exhortations and started hurling abuses. The accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Lovely gave a lalkara and then he opened an assault upon Kulwinder Singh @ Kinda who had just reached there as a guest and was husband of local councillor. He struck a blow with an iron punch to Kulwinder Singh thereby making him fall from his bike. The petitioner struck blow with an ice pick thereby causing injury on head of Kulwinder Singh. The co-accused also caused injuries to him. The cause of grudge was political rivalry. The injured Kulwinder Singh @ Kinda was rushed to hospital but was declared to be dead. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The postmortem examination of dead body of Kulwinder Singh and inquest proceedings were conducted. Some of the co-accused were arrested. The petitioner had absconded. Proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were initiated and petitioner was declared a proclaimed person on 17.07.2019. Challan was presented against the co-accused. 3. As revealed from the record during the course of trial, an MANJU 2025.08.13 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.12697 of 2025 (O&M) -3- application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. had been filed by the prosecution and the present petitioner along with some of the co-accused was sought to be summoned as additional accused. The said application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 10.10.2019. The petitioner had filed a revision petition against that order but then it was recorded that the petitioner had already been declared a proclaimed person and was never declared to be innocent. The petitioner then surrendered before the trial Court on 25.09.2023 and is in custody since then. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No injury as attributed to him had been found on the dead body of the victim. The ocular version of the FIR is not supported by medical evidence. He has been nominated as accused at the instance of Raj Kumar Malhotra, Advocate, brother of the complainant. There is no material on record to show his participation in the crime. He does not have any criminal antecedents. Trial is likely to take time. Material witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution version. The co-accused Pargat Singh @ Pagga and Harjit Singh @ Honey has been extended benefit of regular bail. On parity, he too deserves to be released on bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab assisted by learned counsel for Prabhjot Singh son of the victim Kulwinder Singh that there are serious allegations against the petitioner who had absconded for a long time and was declared a MANJU 2025.08.13 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.12697 of 2025 (O&M) -4- proclaimed person. There are chances of his absconding again if extended benefit of bail. In his sworn deposition, PW Prabhjot Singh who was eye- witness to the occurrence has duly supported the prosecution version. The case of petitioner is not at parity with the case of the other accused who have been given benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object of that unlawful assembly, he is alleged to have assaulted the victim Kulwinder Singh who died a homicidal death. The petitioner has placed on record copies of sworn depositions of the witnesses examined before the trial Court. A perusal of the testimonies of PW-3 Vijay Kumar Malhotra i.e. the complainant, PW-5 Amritpal Singh, PW-6 Naresh Kumar, PW-7 Amrit Singh, PW-8 Randhir Singh and PW-10 Paramdeep Singh reveals that they have not implicated the petitioner in the commission of subject crime. However, testimony of PW-4 Prabhjot Singh who was also an eye-witness to the incident and is son of the deceased, is also placed on record which shows that he has supported the prosecution version. The trial is going on at a proper pace. Simply because some of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution version some of whom are not even eye-witnesses, it cannot be stated at this stage that the petitioner had not committed the subject offences. The allegations against him are quite serious. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations so levelled, the quantum of sentence which the conviction MANJU 2025.08.13 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.12697 of 2025 (O&M) -5- may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (MANISHA BATRA) 13.08.2025 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2025.08.13 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh