IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 214 Kuldeep Singh State of Punjab [ CORAM: Present : SURYA PARTAP SINGH under Section 483 of been filed under Sections 302, 307, 506, 447, 511, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. 2. ‘Narinder Kaur’ (wife of deceased ‘Harbhajan Singh’), hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above complainant that her husband was petitioner herein) dispute regarding demarcation of agricultural land. According to complainant, despite several efforts by the Panchayat, the dispute could not CRM-M-24166-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kuldeep Singh VERSUS State of Punjab & Anr. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate f Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab Mr. Vivek Dahiya and Mr. Kadambari Bhan, Advocates for the respondent No.2. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for bail is the first under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita been filed with regard to a case arising out of under Sections 302, 307, 506, 447, 511, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh The abovementioned FIR came into being ‘Narinder Kaur’ (wife of deceased ‘Harbhajan Singh’), hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above complainant that her husband was killed by his brother ‘Kuldeep Singh’ (the petitioner herein) and his wife ‘Jasvir Kaur’ dispute regarding demarcation of agricultural land. According to complainant, despite several efforts by the Panchayat, the dispute could not (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24166-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.07.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondents SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Vivek Dahiya and Mr. Kadambari Bhan, Advocates ***** first petition, filed by the petitioner Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It case arising out of FIR No.37 dated 27.03.2024 under Sections 302, 307, 506, 447, 511, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Narinder Kaur’ (wife of deceased ‘Harbhajan Singh’), hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named by his brother ‘Kuldeep Singh’ (the d his wife ‘Jasvir Kaur’, on account of a long-standing dispute regarding demarcation of agricultural land. According to complainant, despite several efforts by the Panchayat, the dispute could not (O&M) .2026 petitioner has 27.03.2024, under Sections 302, 307, 506, 447, 511, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh at the instance of ‘Narinder Kaur’ (wife of deceased ‘Harbhajan Singh’), hereinafter being named by his brother ‘Kuldeep Singh’ (the standing dispute regarding demarcation of agricultural land. According to complainant, despite several efforts by the Panchayat, the dispute could not GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.18 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document be resolved amicably received information that the petitioner along with his wife was demarcating the disputed land reached the spot along with his relatives and objected demarcation spade and attacked him and during the course of occurrence, the petitioner fired a gunshot at the deceased. As per complainant, when she and others attempted to rescue the deceased, they were also threat Thereafter, the injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Amloh, where he was declared brought dead. 3. statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the 4. petitioner. The same be taken on record. 5. 6. this is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner, who has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than two years and three months. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, prosecution in itself is fake an documents, prepared by the Investigating Agency, with regard to recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of petitioner, are not correct. CRM-M-24166-2026 (O&M) 2 be resolved amicably, and that on 27.04.2024 at about 09:0 received information that the petitioner along with his wife was demarcating the disputed land. As per complainant on receipt of information reached the spot along with his relatives and objected demarcation, and on doing so, ‘Harkirat Singh’ spade and attacked him and during the course of occurrence, the petitioner fired a gunshot at the deceased. As per complainant, when she and others attempted to rescue the deceased, they were also threat Thereafter, the injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Amloh, where he was declared brought dead. It is the case of the prosecution that statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. Heard. It has been contended by learned this is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner, who has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than two years and three months. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, prosecution in itself is fake and imaginary, and that documents, prepared by the Investigating Agency, with regard to recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of petitioner, are not correct. (O&M) 2 on 27.04.2024 at about 09:00 am, she received information that the petitioner along with his wife was demarcating . As per complainant on receipt of information the deceased reached the spot along with his relatives and objected to the act of ng so, ‘Harkirat Singh’, the co-accused, picked-up a spade and attacked him and during the course of occurrence, the petitioner fired a gunshot at the deceased. As per complainant, when she and others attempted to rescue the deceased, they were also threatened by the accused. Thereafter, the injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Amloh, where he was It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner, who has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than two years and three months. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the story set-out by the d imaginary, and that an analysis of the documents, prepared by the Investigating Agency, shows that the allegations with regard to recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of 0 am, she received information that the petitioner along with his wife was demarcating the deceased to the act of up a spade and attacked him and during the course of occurrence, the petitioner fired a gunshot at the deceased. As per complainant, when she and others ened by the accused. Thereafter, the injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Amloh, where he was in view of abovementioned ken up. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the counsel for the petitioner that this is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner, who has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than two years and three months. out by the analysis of the that the allegations with regard to recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.18 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. further contended that as per story, set incident, the petitioner and his wife were followed by the police party and within few hours, they were arrested, but recovery of weapon has been shown on next day from the residence of the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, prosecution case doubtful. 8. also contende account of long incarceration also, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail. 9. for the respondent No.2, According to learned State Counsel, in the present case comparatively a smaller role has been attributed to the wife of the petitioner, and that the benefit of bail accorded to the wife of petitioner withdrawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Counsel, vis role in the commission of offence has been attributed to the petitioner the firing of to the benefit of bail. 10. CRM-M-24166-2026 (O&M) 3 With regard to above, the learned cou further contended that as per story, set-out by the prosecution, just after the incident, the petitioner and his wife were followed by the police party and within few hours, they were arrested, but recovery of weapon has been on next day from the residence of the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned discrepancy prosecution case doubtful. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the trial is taking place at a very slow pace and on account of long incarceration also, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2, has controverted the abovementioned arguments According to learned State Counsel, in the present case comparatively a smaller role has been attributed to the wife of the petitioner, and that the benefit of bail accorded to the wife of petitioner withdrawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Counsel, vis-à-vis learned counsel for the respondent No.2, since the direct role in the commission of offence has been attributed to the petitioner the firing of gunshot on the person of deceased, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. The record has been perused carefully. (O&M) 3 learned counsel for the petitioner has out by the prosecution, just after the incident, the petitioner and his wife were followed by the police party and within few hours, they were arrested, but recovery of weapon has been on next day from the residence of the petitioner. According to learned the abovementioned discrepancy renders the In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has d that the trial is taking place at a very slow pace and on account of long incarceration also, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of , being assisted by learned counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments According to learned State Counsel, in the present case comparatively a smaller role has been attributed to the wife of the petitioner, and that the benefit of bail accorded to the wife of petitioner, by this Court, has been withdrawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. As per learned State vis learned counsel for the respondent No.2, since the direct role in the commission of offence has been attributed to the petitioner, i.e. gunshot on the person of deceased, the petitioner is not entitled The record has been perused carefully. nsel for the petitioner has out by the prosecution, just after the incident, the petitioner and his wife were followed by the police party and within few hours, they were arrested, but recovery of weapon has been on next day from the residence of the petitioner. According to learned renders the In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has d that the trial is taking place at a very slow pace and on account of long incarceration also, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of , being assisted by learned counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case comparatively a smaller role has been attributed to the wife of the petitioner, and that the has been As per learned State vis learned counsel for the respondent No.2, since the direct , i.e. gunshot on the person of deceased, the petitioner is not entitled GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.18 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. the relevant factors which are required to be decision:- 12. allegations the mitigating circumstances discussed above, anything on the merits of the case is devoid of merit dismissed 13. shall not have any 14. disposed of, accordingly. 17.07.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-24166-2026 (O&M) 4 A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be - i. that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner punishable with life imprisonment or death; ii. that there is direct allegation against the petitioner fired a gunshot on the person of deceased, and injuries proved to be fatal; iii. that the weapon has been recovered from the possession of petitioner; and iv. that the benefit of bail has been declined to co the petitioner by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Taking into consideration the allegations of firing gunshot against the petitioner the mitigating circumstances discussed above, anything on the merits of the case, it is hereby held that devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed, accordingly. However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations shall not have any bearing upon the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable (O&M) 4 A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner punishable with life imprisonment or death; that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he fired a gunshot on the person of deceased, and that such injuries proved to be fatal; that the weapon has been recovered from the possession that the benefit of bail has been declined to co-accused of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; n the fact that there are direct against the petitioner, the gravity of offence and the mitigating circumstances discussed above, but without commenting it is hereby held that the present petition dismissal. Hence, the same is hereby it is clarified that the abovementioned observations bearing upon the merits of the case. application(s), if any, also stand(s) (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are taken into consideration for a the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is that he that such that the weapon has been recovered from the possession accused of direct gravity of offence and but without commenting tition dismissal. Hence, the same is hereby it is clarified that the abovementioned observations application(s), if any, also stand(s) ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.18 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document