CRM-M-36308-2026 1 105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36308-2026 DECIDED ON: 13.07.2026 PRABHJOT SINGH ALIAS JYOTI .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH. Present: Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab. SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Prabhjot Singh alias Jyoti, aged about 30 years 04 03.01.2026 103, 61(2), 324(4) of BNS (corresponding to sections 302, 120-B and 427 of IPC) and section 25 of Arms Act Dharamkot Moga 2. On 08.07.2026, following order was passed by this Court:- “2. Incident in the present case is alleged to have taken place at about 6:40 a.m. on 03.01.2026. FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant-Gurvinder Singh, who claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. As per the allegations, his brother-Umarseer Singh, had left his house for the LAVISHA 2026.07.13 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-36308-2026 2 Nestle Factory, Moga, in his Swift Dzire car, bearing registration No. PB-04-Z-9800. Complainant, along with his cousin Baljinder Singh, also proceeded towards Moga on the complainant's Hero Splendor motorcycle, bearing registration No.PB-76-A-7601, and was following the car of the deceased. It is alleged that when the car of Umarseer Singh reached near village Bhinder Kalan, a black-coloured car carrying four occupants intercepted it, and intentionally rammed into the deceased's vehicle, causing extensive damage. Upon the vehicle coming to a halt, 3-4 young men alighted from the car. It is alleged that each of them was armed with two pistols and indiscriminately fired at Umarseer Singh, while he was still seated inside his vehicle. Two of the assailants were identified in the FIR, as Manpreet Singh alias Mannu and Bhinda Singh, both residents of village Bhinder Khurd. Motive attributed in the FIR for murder, is political rivalry arising out of the village Panchayat and Block Samiti elections. Approximately seven to eight days later, i.e., on 11.01.2026, General Diary Report No.10 (Annexure P-3) was recorded by Police Constable Jagmohan Singh, that upon returning to the police station during the course of investigation, confidential information was received regarding involvement of the additional accused, namely, Prabhjot Singh alias Joti, Pargat Singh alias Pairi, Onkar Singh, Sarabjit Singh alias Sara, Gurmeet Kaur, Jaspreet Singh alias Jassa, and two unidentified persons alleged to be among the shooters. The said information was reduced into writing and forwarded to the Area Magistrate as well as to the senior police officers. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appears on behalf of the respondent-State. 5. On the very outset, this Court sought clarification from the learned State counsel on the following aspects: (i) On what basis, after a lapse of seven to eight days from the date of the occurrence, petitioner and the other accused came to be implicated in the present case, particularly when FIR did not disclose any connection of the petitioner with the incident of shooting; LAVISHA 2026.07.13 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-36308-2026 3 (ii) Since complainant and his cousin- Baljinder Singh, were allegedly following the deceased on the same motorcycle and claim to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, what steps, if any, were taken by them immediately after the incident; (iii) Whether any effort was made by them to shift the injured Umarseer Singh to the hospital and, if so, whether he was transported on the motorcycle or in his own car; and (iv) What is the position with regard to the bloodstains, if any, found on the persons of the complainant and Baljinder Singh, as well as inside the car, particularly on the driver's seat and other relevant portions of the vehicle. 6. Learned State counsel prays for time to file a detailed status report, addressing all the aforesaid aspects. 7. Adjourned to 13.07.2026. 8. To be shown in the urgent list.” 3. Learned State counsel has filed status report dated 12.07.2026 in the Court today and the same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the file. 4. Paragraph No.15 of the status report, is reproduced here below:- “15. It is also submitted here that in reply to the questions raised by this Hon'ble Court the reply is being as under:- i) On what basis, after a lapse of seven to eight days from the date of the occurrence, petitioner and the other accused came to be implicated in the present case, particularly when FIR did not disclose any connection of the petitioner with the incident of shooting. That during investigation of the case, it is submitted that petitioner has been nominated on the basis of secret information as petitioner is involved in the planning of murder of Umarsir Singh. It is also submitted here that as per the CRD of mobile number of petitioner, Manpreet Singh, Onkar Singh etc was LAVISHA 2026.07.13 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-36308-2026 4 also obtained and it is found that location of all of them was same on 01.01.2026. ii) Since complainant and his cousin-Baljinder Singh, were allegedly following the deceased on the same motorcycle and claim to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, what steps, if any, were taken by them immediately after the incident. That as Umarsir Singh was died at the spot, due to firearm injuries and complainant as well as his cousin were initially under fear and mentally harmed. iii) Whether any effort was made by them to shift the injured Umarseer Singh to the hospital and, if so, whether he was transported on the motorcycle or in his own car; That Umarsir Singh was already died at the spot, due to firearm injuries caused by accused and complainant immediately called the police. Then police reached at the spot and send the dead body of Umarsir Singh to Civil Hospital, Moga. iv) What is the position with regard to the bloodstains, if any, found on the persons of the complainant and Baljinder Singh, as well as inside the car, particularly on the driver's seat and other relevant portions of the vehicle. Forensic team had taken the blood stained sample from the driver seat of the car as well as from the blood stained earth.” 5. Learned State counsel submits that, in fact, under a misconception that the dead body was first taken to the hospital and statement of the complainant was recorded there by the police, certain queries were raised by this Court from the State, vide order dated 08.07.2026. 6. Learned State counsel further submits that, during the course of investigation, three of the accused, namely, Manpreet Singh alias Mannu, Bhinda Singh, and Jaspreet Singh alias Jassa, were identified as LAVISHA 2026.07.13 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-36308-2026 5 having been outside the car and firing shots at Umarseer Singh (since deceased). 7. Referring to paragraph No.16 of the status report, wherein role attributed to the petitioner has been detailed, learned State counsel submits that the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of mobile number 98771- 28344 and those of the other accused were obtained. As per the said CDRs, petitioner and other accused, namely, Manpreet Singh, Onkar Singh, Sarabjit Singh, Pargat Singh, and Karanpreet Singh, were found to be present at the same location on 01.01.2026, when, as per the case of prosecution, the conspiracy was allegedly hatched while they were sitting together and consuming alcohol. 8. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available before it. 9. Nothing substantial has been pointed out in the status report to establish that petitioner was present at the spot on the time of occurrence. However, considering the prosecution version that more than one accused are involved in the commission of the offence, and murder was allegedly committed pursuant to a conspiracy hatched two days prior to the incident, during which all the accused persons were found together as reflected from the CDR details, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the present case. May be the present case is a fit case for consideration of regular bail at an appropriate stage, but it does not warrant grant of LAVISHA 2026.07.13 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-36308-2026 6 anticipatory bail, particularly in an offence of such grave nature where, as per the prosecution case, a human life has been taken, pursuant to a conspiracy involving several accused persons. 10. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 13.07.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.07.13 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh