CRM-M-56118- IN THE H (119) GAGANDEEP SI STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S Mr. A MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Sections 30 Amritsar. 2. The a the statement got found the dead bo registration of FIR -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH EP SINGH @ GAGAN Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the pe Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the com ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.11 ons 302, 201 and 34 of IPC at Polic The aforementioned FIR was register nt got recorded by the complainant ead body of the victim lying in his fi of FIR, investigation proceedings we JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-56118-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
the petitioner the complainant by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 112 dated 28.07.2022 registered t Police Station Chatiwind, District egistered against unknown person on inant Mangwinder Singh, who had his fields as on 28.07.2022. After ngs were initiated. On 29.07.2022, M) 2026 oner
dent
ction grant tered strict n on had After 022, AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-56118- Sarvjit Singh @ S deceased as his f Post-mortem exam witness Avtar Sin alleging that he k from his sons, wh on the noon of 2 collecting consign he had seen the pe and one youth wa know the murder o had come to record 3. On th nominated as an interrogated and su had taken place be some monetary iss with him to elimin they had taken the Gurdev Singh @ stood guard outsi amount of Rs.21,0 same amongst the -2025 (O&M) 2 h @ Shanki approached the Investiga his father Mahinder Singh. Inques examination of the dead body was tar Singh recorded his statement bef t he knew the victim Mahinder Sing who were engaged in manufacturin of 27.07.2022, the victim had com onsignment of bracelets on his Activa the petitioner, while riding the victim uth was sitting as a pillion rider. By urder of the victim, he suspected that t record his statement. On the basis of the statement of Av as an accused and was arrested on and suffered disclosure statement adm lace between the accused Gurdev Sing tary issued on 27.07.2022 and Gurdev eliminate the victim and further disclo ken the victim to a factory where the gh @ Guri had committed murder o outside the factory for surveillance s.21,000/- kept in the pocket of the gst themselves. He also disclosed ab estigating Officer and identified the Inquest proceedings were initiated. was conducted. On the same day, nt before the Investigating Officer r Singh who used to buy bracelets acturing the same. He informed that d come to his son Daler Singh for ctiva vehicle. On the same evening, victim on the Activa vehicle himself r. By alleging that after coming to d that the petitioner was involved, he of Avtar Singh, the petitioner was ed on 29.07.2022 itself. He was nt admitting that a verbal altercation v Singh @ Guri and the victim over urdev Singh @ Guri hatched a plan r disclosed that in pursuance thereof, re the accused Sukhdeep Singh and rder of the victim, whereas he had illance. They had taken out cash f the victim and had distributed the sed about riding the vehicle of the d the ated. day, ficer elets that h for ning, self g to d, he was was ation over plan reof, and had cash d the f the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-56118- victim and throwin recovered the vehi 3. As p petitioner, the abo nominated and ar their involvement stands concluded. 4. It is a falsely implicated Singh. There is no circumstantial evid seen the victim wi material to connec case, he had stoo victim. There wa Only minor injurie there was no inten useful purpose wo Gurdev Singh @ G of bail. His case i extended the same that the petition de -2025 (O&M) 3 throwing his dead body in the fields a e vehicle of the victim. As per further allegations on the he above named Sukhdev Singh and arrested. They also suffered di ement in the crime alongwith the p luded. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case on the basis of stat re is no eye-witness to the murder of th evidence. The version of the PW A tim with the petitioner cannot be believ connect him with the crime. Even oth d stood guard outside the factory and ere was no motive for him to cause h injuries were found on the dead body o intention to murder him. The trial ose would be served by detaining him gh @ Guri and Sukhdev Singh @ Ma case is even at a better footing and, th e same benefit. His antecedents are tion deserves to be allowed. ields at Mandiala Road. He also got n the basis of disclosure of the h and Gurdev Singh @ Guri were red disclosure statements admitting the petitioner. Investigation now l for the petitioner that he has been of statement recorded by PW Avtar er of the victim. The case rests upon PW Avtar Singh as to having lastly believed. There is no incriminating en otherwise, as per the prosecution ry and was not the assailant of the ause homicidal death of the victim. body of the victim which shows that trial will take time to conclude. No ng him in custody. The co-accused @ Mani have been extended benefit and, therefore, he too deserves to be ts are clean. It is, therefore, argued o got the were itting now been vtar upon astly ating ution f the ctim. that . No used nefit to be gued AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-56118- 5. Status complainant has b for the complaina serious in nature. version of the pros the victim alongw companion and, th reliable and inspir the commission o accused, who were is going at a prope There are no cha therefore, argued t 6. This counsel for the par 7. The p dead body was r petitioner, the co stood guard, howe him prima facie petitioner cannot otherwise were n parity cannot be th -2025 (O&M) 4 Status report has been filed. Power t has been filed. Learned State couns plainant has argued that the allegati ature. PW Avtar Singh stands examin e prosecution that on the fateful day, alongwith him on the Activa vehicle and, thereafter, the victim had died. inspires full confidence to establish sion of offence of murder. He cann o were nominated on the basis of his d proper pace as 11 out of 29 prosecut o chances of any undue delay in co gued that the petition does not deserve This Court has heard the rival subm parties at considerable length. The petitioner was lastly seen with th was recovered. Though, as per the he co-accused had committed the mu , however, since the other circumstan cie disclose his complicity in the off annot be stated to be at parity wit ere nominated on his disclosure sta t be the sole ground for grant of bail Power of Attorney on behalf of the counsel assisted by learned counsel llegations against the petitioner are xamined and has fully supported the l day, he had seen the petition taking ehicle of the latter with one more died. The evidence of last seen is blish the link of the petitioner with e cannot claim parity with the co- of his disclosure statement. The trial osecution witnesses stand examined. in conclusion of the same. It is, eserve to be allowed. l submissions made by the learned ith the petitioner and, thereafter, his er the disclosure statement of the he murder of the victim and he had umstances as put in service against the offence of murder, therefore, the ty with the co-accused, who even re statement. It is well settled that f bail. It is purely discretion of the f the unsel r are d the king more en is with - trial ined. It is, rned r, his f the had ainst , the even that f the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-56118- Court. Before g considering the which show that th or not. Reliance and Another 2025 Supreme Court th circumstances inv ground of bail, the given solely becau same offence. N allegations against of law is that mere to take time by sufficient grounds serious. Reference Parmod Kumar Krishna Yadav V through CBI Vs. Keeping in view which the convicti case but without m the considered o Accordingly, the s -2025 (O&M) 5 fore granting or refusing bail, the C the material placed on record and ot that there are sufficient grounds for re liance in this regard can be placed up 2025 SCC Online SC 2584, wherei ourt that the relief of bail is to be gr es involved in the alleged offence. W ail, the Court must focus on the role o because another accused was grante . Neither can this ground be claim against him are quite serious in nature t mere prolonged period of custody o e by itself or coupled with the pe ounds for enlarging an accused on ba ference in this context can be had ar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) A av Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2 Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4 view the gravity of the allegations, onviction may entail and the attendant thout meaning to make any comment red opinion that the petition does , the same is dismissed. the Court must satisfy itself after and other peculiar facts of the case s for releasing of the accused on bail ced upon Sagar Versus State of UP rein it was observed by Hon’ble be granted with due regard to the nce. While utilizing the parity as a role of the accused and it cannot be granted bail in connection with the claimed as a matter of right. The nature. The well settled proposition tody or the fact that the trial is likely he period of incarceration are not on bail, when the offence alleged is had to the observations made in 3) ACC (SC), Chenna Boyanna , (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State 005(4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). tions, the quantum of sentence for ndant facts and circumstances of the ment on the merits thereof, I am of does not deserve to be allowed. after case bail UP ble the as a ot be h the The ition ikely not ed is e in na ate . e for f the m of wed. AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-56118- 8. Since any, is rendered in 25.02.2026 Amit Sharma


-2025 (O&M) 6 Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

en dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
Yes/No
n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.