CRM-M-60550- IN THE H (108) SARABJIT SING STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Sections 30 Act (Section 379( deleted later on) at 2. Brief that the aforemen recorded by the co -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
SINGH @ SONU CYLINDER Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the pe Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.21 ns 302, 34, 379(b)(2), 120B of IPC a n 379(b)(2) and 120B added later on on) at Police Station Civil Lines, Dist Brief facts relevant for the purpose orementioned FIR was registered on the complainant Avinash Malhotra all JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-60550-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
r the petitioner by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 217 dated 28.10.2023 registered IPC and Section 25 and 27 of Arms ter on and Section 25 of Arms Act s, District Amritsar. rpose of disposal of this petition is red on the basis of statement got otra alleging therein that on the night 2026 oner
dent
ction grant tered rms Act is t night AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60550- of 27.10.2023, he vehicle to attend victim Rakesh Ku coloured bag cont had been written. Hospital, suddenly pillion rider pounc alarm and then weapon held in hi alongwith the veh attracted other per succumbed to the investigation proc body and inquest p 3. As pe Suraj Singh and D were arrested in a their involvement case. They were accused Suraj suf that the pistol use case has also been the case bearing F -2025 (O&M) 2 23, he alongwith the victim Rakesh K ttend some Jagran program. The veh esh Kumar and he was a pillion rid g containing his diary in which bhaja ritten. When they were moving on ddenly three youths came riding on a pounced upon him and took away his then they escaped. While fleeing, th d in his right hand. The bullet hit Ra he vehicle on the ground. The clamo er persons and the victim was rushed to the firearm injury sustained by hi n proceedings were initiated. Post quest proceedings were conducted. As per the further allegations, the acc and Danish Gill were arrested during d in another case. They suffered di ement in this crime as well and were were joined into investigation of th aj suffered a disclosure statement in tol used by him in committing murde o been used in another case which had ring FIR No.216 dated 28.10.2023. Th esh Kumar was going on his Activa he vehicle was being driven by the on rider. He was holding a black bhajans to be recited in the Jagran ng on the road towards Sukh Sagar g on a motorbike from behind. The ay his bag. The complainant raised , the driver fired a shot with a hit Rakesh Kumar and he fell down clamour raised by the complainant rushed to the hospital. However, he by him. After registration of FIR, Post-mortem examination of dead the accused Rajinder Singh @ Ashu, ng the course of investigation and red disclosure statements admitting were nominated as accused in this of this case on 07.11.2023. The ent in this case as well to the effect murder of the victim in the present ch had already been got recovered in 23. The said pistol was given to him ctiva y the lack gran agar The aised ith a own inant r, he FIR, dead shu, and itting this The ffect esent ed in him AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60550- by the present peti this case as well a and Rajinder Sing On the basis of t accused. He was 2023 registered a secured through p formally arrested Malkeet Singh h Investigation now 4. It is a falsely implicated accused which c participation in th to him. There is n has been got effec falsely planted up involvement in ot benefit of bail to h custody anymore. argued that the pet -2025 (O&M) 3 nt petitioner and one Malkeet Singh @ well as in case bearing FIR No.216 w r Singh, on the asking of the present is of the same, the present petitioner e was already in custody in some othe ered at Police Station Civil Lines, ugh production warrants and he was rested on 09.11.2023. He disclosed t ngh had provided one countrymade n now stands completed. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case on the basis of the d ich cannot be considered to be a in the commission of offence of mu ere is no incriminating evidence again t effected from him in this case. Th upon him in this case and in the c t in other cases cannot be considere ail to him. No useful purpose would more. The trial will take considerable petition deserve to be allowed. ingh @ Samar and also the murder in .216 was committed by him (Suraj) resent petitioner and Malkeet Singh. itioner was nominated as additional e other case bearing FIR No.184 of ines, Amritsar. His presence was e was joined into investigation and losed that he alongwith the accused ymade pistol to co-accused Suraj. l for the petitioner that he has been f the disclosure statement of the co- be admissible in evidence. No of murder of the victim is attributed against the petitioner. No recovery e. The recovery of pistol has been n the case bearing FIR No.216. His sidered to be a reason for denying ould be served by detaining him in derable time to conclude. It is, thus, er in uraj) ingh. ional 4 of was and used uraj. been - No uted very been His ying m in thus, AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60550- 5. Per c and specific alle commission of of actual assailants. on record to show The antecedents o other cases. Ther or intimidating the that the petition do 6. This C for the parties at co 7. The r procurement of fir named in the FIR. and the act of sup co-accused and cir a conduit or a faci and remote offenc Section 302 of I however, in pres the petitioner jus evidence and the p -2025 (O&M) 4 Per contra, learned State counsel has c allegations against the petitioner of offence of murder of the victim lants. In fact, he was the mastermind o show that there would be any undue d ents of the petition are not clean as h There are chances of his absconding ing the witnesses, if extended benefit o tion does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The role attributed to the petitioner i t of firearm and is distinct from princi e FIR. The linkage sought to be esta of supply of arms, primarily rests on t and circumstantial inferences. The rol a facilitator in the purported procurem offence, from the direct commission of IPC. This Court is conscious present purposes, the Court must tes er justifies continued pre-trial inca d the progress of the trial. Since the ca sel has argued that there are serious titioner as he had facilitated the victim by providing a pistol to the mind of the crime. There is nothing ndue delay in conclusion of the trial. n as he has been involved in several onding, committing similar offences enefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued ubmissions made by learned counsel ioner is limited to facilitating illegal principal homicidal act. He was not e established between the petitioner ts on the disclosure statement of the he role so attributed to him is that of rocurement of arms which is distinct ission of offence punishable under scious that the offence is serious, ust test whether the material against l incarceration bearing nature of the case against the petition rests on rious the the thing trial. veral nces gued unsel legal s not ioner f the at of tinct nder ious, ainst e of ts on AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60550- the disclosure sta whether the burd rigorously. The foregoing discussi this Court is of petitioner would n allowing the petit ordered to be relea bonds to the Magistrate/Duty M 8. In the petitioners, it shall application seekin -2025 (O&M) 5 re statement of the co-accused, this e burden of proof and standard o The petitioner is in custody since iscussion, particularly the limited role is of the considered opinion that th ould not serve the interest of justice. e petition. Accordingly, the same is e released on bail subject to his furnis the satisfaction of the learned uty Magistrate concerned and on the i. The petitioner shall app Court on each and ever presence is exempted by ii. The petitioner shall not influence witnesses in an iii. The petitioner shall no permission of the Trial C In the event of there being any FIR it shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. , this is a matter best left for trial ard of evidence shall be applied since 09.11.2023. In view of the ed role as ascribed to the petitioner, hat the continued detention of the stice. As such a case is made out for me is allowed and the petitioner is furnishing personal as well as surety arned trial Court/Chief Judicial n the following conditions :- all appear before the Learned Trial d every date of hearing, unless his ted by the Trial Court; ll not tamper evidence or attempt to s in any manner; all not leave the country without Trial Court. y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an l plied f the oner, f the t for er is urety icial Trial s his pt to thout t the g an AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60550- 9. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 10. Since any, is rendered in 27.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 6 It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been al ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
  
e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
Yes/No
l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.