CRM-M-55777- IN THE H (118) MAHABIR SING STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S Mr. MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Sections 30 120B of IPC added 2. The a statement got reco Ranjit Singh was gone to Qatar in th -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH SINGH Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Amit Arora, Advocate for the pet Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Nikhil, Advocate for the complai ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.17 ons 302, 34 of IPC and Section 25 a added later on) at Police Station Sada The aforementioned FIR had been r ot recorded by the complainant Maloo h was married with accused Baljit Ka ar in the year 2016 to work and had re JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-55777-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
the petitioner mplainant by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 175 dated 07.11.2023 registered n 25 and 27 of Arms Act (Section Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran. been registered on the basis of the Malook Singh alleging that his son ljit Kaur in the year 2011. He had had returned back in May, 2023. He M) 2026 oner
dent
ction grant tered ction f the s son had . He AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55777- had started a gy 06/07.11.2023, wh firing gunshot at a saw two youths ju catch-hold of them having a pistol in standing in the cou him to be lying in injury. By alle relationship with t petitioner had eve prayed for taking a 3. After Post-mortem exam conducted. The 07.11.2023 on the Offence under Se arrested on the sa admitting the fact and also that she had become an ob had come to her -2025 (O&M) 2 a gym at their native village. O 23, while they were sleeping in their h ot at about 01:20 AM. He woke up a uths jumping out of the wall of his ho f them and identified one of them w tol in his left hand. His daughter-in- courtyard. On entering inside the ing in a pool of blood. He had alrea y alleging that the accused Baljit with the petitioner during the absenc even extended threats to kill his aking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigatio examination of the dead body an The complainant recorded his on the basis of which Baljit Kaur w der Section 120B of IPC was adde the same day. On interrogation, she e fact that she was maintaining illicit r t she had hatched a plan with the pe an obstacle in their path and in pursua o her house and had shot at the vic ge. On the intervening night of their house, he heard some noises of e up and rushed out of his room and his house and ran away. He tried to em who was the petitioner and was -law Baljit Kaur was also found e the room of his son, he was found d already succumbed to the gunshot Baljit Kaur, had developed illicit absence of her husband and that the ll his son on his mobile phone, he stigation proceedings were initiated. ody and inquest proceedings were his supplementary statement on aur was nominated as an accused. added. Accused Baljit kaur was n, she suffered disclosure statement illicit relationship with the petitioner the petitioner to kill the victim who pursuance of the same, the petitioner e victim, thereby killing him. The t of es of and ed to was ound ound shot illicit t the , he ated. were t on used. was ment ioner who ioner The AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55777- petitioner was arre Recovery of pistol 4. It is a has been falsely im him. He has cle conclude. His fur co-accused Baljit benefit of bail. On therefore, argued t 5. Powe Learned State co argued that there a hatching a conspir victim on the fatef his homicidal deat It is, therefore, stre 6. This counsel for the par 7. The p eliminate the vict thereby murderin complicity of the -2025 (O&M) 3 as arrested on 14.11.2023 and suffere pistol and bike used in the crime was It is argued by learned counsel for th sely implicated in this case. A false re as clean antecedents. The trial w is further incarceration would not se ljit Kaur and Gurparsad Singh @ ail. On parity, he too deserves to be ex gued that the petition deserves to be al Power of Attorney on behalf of the ate counsel assisted by learned coun there are serious and specific allegatio onspiracy with the co-accused, had e fateful night, had fired shots with pis al death. The weapon of offence has b re, stressed that the petition does not d This Court has heard the rival subm parties at considerable length. The petitioner alongwith the co-acc e victim and had fired shots upon h rdering him. The allegations prim of the petitioner in the commission uffered similar disclosure statement. e was effected at his instance. l for the petitioner that the petitioner false recovery has been planted upon rial will take considerable time to not serve any useful purpose. The ingh @ Gora have been extended o be extended the same benefit. It is, o be allowed. of the complainant has been filed. d counsel for the complainant has legations against the petition who by had entered inside the house of the ith pistol upon him, thereby causing e has been recovered at his instance. s not deserve to be allowed. l submissions made by the learned accused had hatched a plan to pon him by entering in his house, prima facie make out a case of ssion of the subject offences. The ent. ioner upon e to The nded It is, filed. has o by f the sing . rned n to e, of The AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55777- allegations agains witness/complaina parity is concerne Singh @ Gora hav parity cannot be th Court. Before g considering the which show that th or not. Reliance and Another 2025 Apex Court that circumstances inv ground of bail, the given solely becau same offence. Ne allegations against the main assailant with a pistol. The crime has been eff on account of pr murder is not entit made to Parmod Boyanna Krishna State through C -2025 (O&M) 4 against the petitioner are quite se plainant had identified the petitioner ncerned, undisputably the co-accuse ra have been extended benefit of bail, t be the sole ground for grant of bail 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 t that the relief of bail is to be gra 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 the petitioner are quite serious sailant and had caused homicidal deat l. The recovery of incriminating mat een effected from him. It is well settle of prolonged custody a person accu t entitled to seek concession of bail. R mod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2 shna Yadav Vs. State of Maharas h CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripath ite serious in nature. The eye- titioner at the spot. So far as the accused Baljit Kaur and Gurparsad f bail, however, it is well settled that f bail. It is purely discretion of the 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 wherein 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 erious in nature. He is alleged to be al death of the victim by firing shots material i.e. the pistol used in the ll settled proposition of law that only n accused of serious offences like bail. Reference in this regard can be I, 2008(63) ACC (SC), Chenna arashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and pathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) - s the arsad that f the after case bail UP ble the as a ot be h the The to be shots n the only like n be na and al) AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55777- 280(SC). As such, ground of period allegations, the qu attendant facts and comment on the m does not deserve to 8. Since any, is rendered in 25.02.2026 Amit Sharma


-2025 (O&M) 5 s such, the petitioner is not entitled to b eriod spent by him in custody. Keep the quantum of sentence for which the cts and circumstances of the case but the merits thereof, I am of the consi erve to be allowed. Accordingly, the s Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

led to be released on bail only on the Keeping in view the gravity of the ich the conviction may entail and the se but without meaning to make any considered opinion that the petition , the same is dismissed. en dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
Yes/No
n the f the d the any tition n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.