CRM-M-32385-2025 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 285 CRM-M-32385-2025 Date of decision: 3rd July, 2025 Ramji ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Shivender, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 44 dated 18.02.2021 registered under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 18.02.2021, on receipt of information regarding death of one Gurlal Singh and his dead body lying in Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, a police party reached there and recorded the statement of Sukhchain Singh, who alleged that on the same day, he along with the victim Gurlal Singh, who was his son, had gone to market for taking something. He had alighted from their car and had gone Parveen Sharma 2025.07.04 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32385-2025 2- towards the office of Veenu Goel Immigration. While he was coming back, he met his relative Gurjaswinder Singh. They started conversing with each other and proceeded towards his car. Within his sight, he saw his son while going towards the car and suddenly two unknown youths reached there and started firing shots with pistols at Gurlal Singh. After firing 12-13 shots, they escaped along with 5-6 other unknown youths who were also present nearby. All of them were making exhortations. The victim Gurlal was seriously injured and was rushed to the hospital, but was declared to be brought dead. While alleging that his son, who was the President of Youth Congress, District Faridkot, had been killed under some deep-rooted conspiracy, he prayed for taking action. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post mortem examination of dead body of the victim was conducted. Subsequently, a post on facebook ID of gangster Lawrence Bishnoi was shared, who along with Satinderjit Singh @ Goldy took responsibility for murder of the victim. Two persons namely Kapil Pehalwan and Harpreet Singh were nominated as accused. On the basis of secret information, it was also revealed that Gurpinder Singh @ Pinder was involved in the murder. He was nominated as an accused and was arrested on 22.02.2021. He suffered disclosure statement admitting that he had provided his motor bike to the co-accused to arrange firearms. As per further allegations, Gurkawaljeet Singh, Sarpanch of Faridkot, recorded his statement on 23.02.2021 to the effect that the accused Akashdeep and Pradeep Singh had suffered extra-judicial confession that co-accused Rajinder Singh @ Johny and Bhim Singh as well as themselves had played a Parveen Sharma 2025.07.04 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32385-2025 3- role in murder of the victim by keeping close surveillance on his movements and had provided information to the main conspirators accused Gurkirat Singh, Akashdeep Singh, Gurinderpal Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Sourav Verma, Bhim Singh, Rajinder Singh and Pradeep Singh were nominated as such. Accused Akashdeep, Pradeep Singh, Bhim Singh and Rajinder Singh were arrested. It was revealed that the accused Amit @ Chhotu and Rajan @ Rajan had killed the victim. They were also arrested. The accused Amit @ Chhotu suffered a disclosure statement on the basis of which the present petitioner was nominated as an accused on the allegations that he had done reiki of the victim and had provided his vehicle to the actual assailants. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.05.2025. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR and was nominated as such, on the allegation that he gave shelter to the co-accused. Though a GD No. 52 was registered on 02.10.2021 thereby nominating him as an accused but he was not sought to be arrested in this case and instead, another case bearing FIR No. 330 dated 15.10.2021 was registered against him under Sections 212 and 216 of IPC at the same police station. He was extended benefit of bail in that case and now he has been discharged by the trial Magistrate vide order dated 10.08.2022. Challan qua accused Rajan and Amit has already been presented after a gap of about three years from the date of his discharge in FIR No. 330 which was virtually on same allegations, he is tried to be arrested in this case which itself shows the Parveen Sharma 2025.07.04 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32385-2025 4- falsity of the allegations as levelled against him. His custodial interrogation is not required. He is ready to join the investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail. 5. Status report has been filed. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner as in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by him and by the co- accused, he had done reiki to know about the movements of the victim and provided the information about the same to the co-accused, who along with the assailants i.e. accused Rajan and Amit had hatched a conspiracy and then the victim was killed. It was a deep rooted conspiracy, which led to the homicidal death of the victim, who had a promising career. For conducting a deep probe, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. His discharge in a case bearing FIR No. 330 has no bearing on this case. No extra ordinary or exceptional circumstance has been made out for the purpose of extending benefit of bail to the petitioner. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. Rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused and in pursuance thereof, he is alleged to have done reiki of the victim on his vehicle. He is also alleged to have helped the co-accused i.e. assailants Amit @ Chotu and Rajan @ Rajan for their stay in a room built over a laboratory after they committed the murder of the victim. No doubt, he has been discharged for commission of offences punishable under Parveen Sharma 2025.07.04 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32385-2025 5- Sections 212 and 216 of IPC in a separate FIR bearing No. 330 dated 15.10.2021. However, at this stage, it cannot be stated that because of discharge in that case, his involvement in this case cannot be presumed. There are serious allegations against him. For conducting thorough investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. It is well settled proposition that custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order of anticipatory bail. Many useful information can be disinterred during custodial interrogation. Moreso, no exceptional or extra ordinary circumstance warranting exercise of powers for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out in this case. Keeping in view the nature of the subject offences and the role attributed to the petitioner and for the purpose of eliciting the truth, I am of the considered opinion that he does not deserve to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 3rd July, 2025 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No Parveen Sharma 2025.07.04 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document