CRM-M-25426-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 134 CRM-M-25426-2026 Date of decision : 16.07.2026 Date of uploading : 17.07.2026 Princepreet Singh ………….Petitioner Versus State Of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Hasrat Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab. Mr. PBS Goraya, Advocate and Mr. PPS Mahl, Advocate for the complainant. --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present 2nd petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.07 dated 16.01.2025 under Sections 109, 304, 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Patti, District Tarn Taran. 2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “Statement of Jarnail Singh son of Sukhchain Singh resident of Margindpura Nikki Makhi, PS: Kacha Pakka aged about 39 years, Mob. No. 98724-80058, stated that I am resident of aforesaid address and I am an agriculturist. My brother Jagjeet Singh along with his family resides at Vishawkarma Colony, Ward No. 15, St. No. 01, Patti and my brother Jagjeet Singh has Karyana Shop at Village Toot. Today, my brother was coming back from Village Toot after closing his Karyana shop and I was coming to Patti to meet him. Today, I and my brother met at PattiMorh and I was on motorcycle and my brother Jagjeet Singh was on his Car Maruti No. PB-46A- 2627 and I started to follow his car for his house, then from Patti Morh, his neighbourerGurwinder Singh resident of Vishawkarma Colony, Ward No. 15, St. No. 01 Patti and one unknown JATIN 2026.07.17 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25426-2026 -2- person sit in his car and I chased them on my motorcycle at about 08:00 PM. When reached at Thakarpura Petrol Pump, then Gurwinder Singh and his friend after stopping the car of my brother tried to kill him by putting a rope around his neck and have fired the gunshots in the stomach of my brother Jagjeet Singh with the pistol carried by them. When my brother started to run from the car, then Gurwinder Singh and his friend directly fired gunshots and 4/5 gunshots hit with my brother Jagjeet Singh and the aforesaid accused persons after thinking my brother as dead left from there by snatching the aforesaid Car Maruti, mobile phone of Samsung of my brother and cash lying in the box of car along with car and aforesaid accused persons fled away from the spot. I with the help of passersby after arranging the vehicle took my brother to Sandhu Hospital, Patti, who referred us to Amritsar, then after arranging the vehicle we got admitted Jagjeet Singh in Amandeep Hospital ASR and Jagjeet Singh is under treatment. Statement has been recorded, heard and is correct. Sd/- Jarnail Singh above said, attested by Sd/- ASI Harpal Singh 75/TT, PS: Sadar Patti dated 15- 01-2025 Police proceedings Today I ASI along with ASI Kulwinder Singh 1773/TT, CT Balraj Singh 1286/TT, PHG Malkeet Singh 3933, PHG Lovepreet Singh 4035 on private vehicle for the purpose of patrolling and checking of bad persons were available at Chowk of Patti Morh that N/MHC Salwinder Singh 447/TT through telephone informed that Jagjeet Singh son of Sukhchain Singh resident of Margindpura Nikki Makhi now Vishawkarma Colony, Ward No. 15, St. No. 01, Patti is under treatment due to sustaining gunshots in Amandeep Hospital ASR, please take action. On which I ASI along with other companions reached Amandeep Hospital, ASR, where a written application was submitted to the Doctor for recording the statement of injured Jagjeet Singh and the Doctor declared injured Jagjeet Singh unfit for giving statement and the brother of Jagjeet Singh namely Jarnail Singh was found present, who recorded his aforesaid statement and after recording the statement, the same was read over and made understanding to him and he after finding his statement to be true and correct appended his signatures on the statement in Punjabi and I attested the same. From the statement, offence u/s 109, 304, 3(5) of BNS, 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act are made out and after recording the statement, the same is being sent by arranging the vehicle to Police Station through PHG Lovepreet Singh 4035 for registration of the case FIR. The case number be informed after registration of the case. After preparation of special reports, the same be sent to Ilaga Magistrate and higher officials. The intimation be sent to Control Room through wireless. I ASI along with other companions am busy in the investigation. Today Amandeep Hospital ASR time: 11:30 PM Sd/- ASI Harpal Singh 75/TT PS: Sadar Patti dated 15-01-2025. Today Police Station: At this time after receiving the above said statement in the Police Station, after recording the said case FIR under said offences, the original statement along with copy of FIR is being sent by hand through PHG for further investigation to ASI at the spot. Special reports are being sent by hand through ASI Nirmal Singh 709/TT for the service of Ilaqa Magistrate and higher officials. The intimation is being given to Control Room through E-Mail. Closure Rapat No. 04 time 01:10 AM dated 16-01- 2025.’ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 17.01.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question primarily on account of his friendly relations with co-accused Gurwinder JATIN 2026.07.17 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25426-2026 -3- Singh. Learned counsel has further submitted that, assuming arguendo that the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the role attributed to the petitioner is that he restrained the injured, Jagjeet Singh, with the help of a rope, whereas the firearm injury sustained by the said injured, Jagjeet Singh, is attributed to co-accused Gurwinder Singh. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.01.2025 and that there has been no headway in the trial. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit dated 27.06.2026 in Court today. The same be kept on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. Relevant whereof reads thus:- 11. ROLE OF THE PETTIONER:-That the specific role attributed to the present petitioner is petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence along with co-accused Gurwinder Singh. As per the disclosure statements of both the co-accused as well as the petitioner himself, the petitioner accompanied co-accused Gurwinder Singh with prior knowledge and common intention to eliminate injured Jagjeet Singh due to the alleged grudge harboured by co-accused Gurwinder Singh against him. The petitioner knowingly sat on the rear seat of the car of injured Jagjeet Singh and, in furtherance of the common intention, put a rope around the neck of the injured near Thakkarpura Petrol Pump in an attempt to strangulate him, while co-accused Gurwinder Singh fired gunshots at the injured with his licensed revolver. Thereafter, when the injured attempted to flee from the vehicle to save himself, the petitioner took the revolver/pistol from co- accused Gurwinder Singh and fired 2-3 shots directly at the injured Jagjeet Singh with the intention to kill him, causing firearm injuries to him. Thereafter, the petitioner along with co- accused Gurwinder Singh snatched the car, mobile phone and cash amount from the possession of the injured and fled away from the spot after abandoning the vehicle near Harike Road. The role of the petitioner, therefore, is active, direct and specific in nature, showing his complete participation in the planning and execution of the offence.” Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned JATIN 2026.07.17 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25426-2026 -4- State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 15.07.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 4.1 Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner was actively involved in the attempt to murder the injured, Jagjeet Singh, and, therefore, does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that there are direct and serious allegations against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further reiterated that the petitioner also fired at the injured. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 17.01.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 06.04.2025. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:- “19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. JATIN 2026.07.17 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25426-2026 -5- 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.” The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 15.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 1 year 5 months and 25 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. 6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.11.2025. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially extended incarceration of the petitioner and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of JATIN 2026.07.17 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25426-2026 -6- Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under: “10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge: I. Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non- prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. IV. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). V. In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.” Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before JATIN 2026.07.17 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25426-2026 -7- the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 16.07.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2026.07.17 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document