CRM-M No.6229 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 308 CRM-M No.6229 of 2026 Date of decision: 08.07.2026 Jaspreet Singh @ Jassi ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Simranjot S.Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 165 09.09.2025 Shri Hargobindpur, District Batala 103, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) (111, 249 and 253 of BNS added later on) and 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Nirmal Singh alleging that his brother Jugraj MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.6229 of 2026 -2- Singh was running a medical shop on the ground floor of his house. On the evening of 09.09.2025, complainant, his brother Jugraj Singh and his wife were present in their house at first floor when Jagdeep Singh working as assistant of his brother informed that someone had come to meet him (Jugraj Singh). The latter went to the ground floor. The complainant along with his sister-in-law Jaspreet Kaur saw from the first floor that two youths had reached there in a Swift car lying parked on the road. The complainant came inside along with his sister-in-law. Shortly thereafter, they heard sounds of some gunshots being fired. They rushed outside and found those youths while fleeing. One of them was carrying a pistol. The complainant rushed downstairs and was told that those youths after firing gunshots upon his brother had fled away. His brother was lying drenched in blood there. He was rushed to hospital but was declared to be brought dead. By suspecting that Amarbir Singh and Raminder Kaur who were nursing grudge against the victim, might have hand in the murder of the victim, he prayed for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. On 12.09.2025, the complainant made a supplementary statement to the effect that the accused Harmanpreet Singh was driver of the car in which the assailants had come. He was nominated as accused and was arrested on 14.09.2025. Recovery of one pistol and four MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.6229 of 2026 -3- cartridges was effected from him. He suffered disclosure statement to the effect that on the asking of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi who was living abroad, recce of the victim was conducted by accused Jasbir Kaur and Jagdish Singh and shots were fired upon by him and co-accused Varinder Singh. The above named persons were nominated as accused. Varinder Singh had died in a police encounter in the meanwhile. 4. As per the further allegations, the accused Jagdish Singh was arrested on 25.10.2025 and then on the basis of secret information, Ranbir Singh and Sunny were nominated as accused. The petitioner and co-accused Sanjiv Kumar were subsequently nominated on the allegations that they provided shelter to the assailants. One Harmanpreet Singh was also nominated as such. They suffered disclosure statement to the effect that murder was committed at the instance of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi and Jaswinder Singh @ Manu and that accused Gurpreet Singh and Nirmal Singh had provided shelter to him. As many as 14 persons were accordingly nominated. Some offences were added during the course of investigation. The petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2025. Investigation now stands concluded. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of a secret information. He was neither named in the FIR nor named by either of the co-accused. The allegations against him are that he along with accused Sanjiv Kumar MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.6229 of 2026 -4- had given shelter to Varinder Singh @ Vijay Pandori assailant of the victim. These allegations are without any basis as no evidence has been collected by the investigating agency to prove so. He is in custody for a period of over 09 months. He is not required for further detention as the investigation stands concluded. He had no link with the co-accused. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody any more. His antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has vehemently argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 7. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 8. The role attributed to the petitioner is limited to harbouring the co-accused Varinder Singh who is alleged to be one of the assailants of the victim Jugraj Singh. His role is distinct from the principal homicidal act. He was not named in the FIR by either of the co-accused and had been nominated on the basis of some secret information. No recovery has been attributed to him. The role so attributed to him is distinct and remote offence from the direct commission of offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS. In view of the circumstances peculiar to the case with regard to the role of the petitioner, it is a question of consideration as to whether MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.6229 of 2026 -5- the continued pre trial incarceration of the petitioner is justified and such question has to be decided only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produce during trial. The petitioner is in custody since 25.09.2025. His antecedents are clean. In view of the foregoing discussion, particularly the limited role as ascribed to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued detention of the petitioner will not serve ends of justice. As such, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:- (i) he shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date of hearing unless exempted. (ii) he shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence witnesses in any manner. (iii) he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 9. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) 08.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh