CRM-M-27733-2026 1 221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27733-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 BARU SINGH ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the concession of regular bail during the pendency of trial in FIR No. 041 dated 12.07.2023, registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding to Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 118(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), at Police Station Rureke Kalan, District Barnala, Punjab. 2. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR was registered on 12.07.2023 on receipt of two medical ruqas from Civil Hospital, Tapa regarding the admission of injured Avijot Singh and death of Gurmail Singh. On the basis of statement of complainant Gurpreet Singh, it was alleged that on the intervening night of 11/12.07.2023, his father Gurmail Singh and maternal nephew Avijot Singh had gone to the portion constructed in their agricultural land situated near Bhaini Fatta Road, village Pakho Kalan. At about 11:57 p.m., the complainant received a call from his father asking them KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-27733-2026 2 to come to the fields immediately as some unknown persons had caused injuries to them. On reaching the spot, the complainant and his family members allegedly found Gurmail Singh and Avijot Singh lying in an injured condition. It was disclosed to them that two unknown persons, with their faces covered, had entered the premises and attacked them with sharp-edged weapons with an intention to kill them. Gurmail Singh was thereafter taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead, whereas Avijot Singh was admitted for treatment. Initially, the FIR was registered against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the names of the present petitioner Baru Singh and co-accused Kulwant Singh and Bikramjit Singh surfaced. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner was nominated on the basis of the statement of Panch Ranjit Singh, before whom the petitioner and co-accused allegedly suffered an extra-judicial confession regarding their involvement in the occurrence. It is further alleged that the petitioner had a previous dispute with deceased Gurmail Singh and had entered into a conspiracy with the co- accused. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2023 and, pursuant to his disclosure statement, one iron weapon (takua) allegedly used in the occurrence and one leather wallet allegedly belonging to the deceased were recovered at his instance. The prosecution case further attributes the use of a kirpan to co-accused Kulwant Singh and alleges that co- accused Bikramjit Singh had accompanied the other accused persons at the time of occurrence. After completion of investigation, the challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented before the learned Trial Court and the petitioner is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-27733-2026 3 326 read with Section 34 IPC (corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and was not named in the FIR. It is contended that the FIR was registered against unknown persons and, in the earliest version, neither the complainant nor the injured witness attributed any role, identity, or suspicion to the petitioner. The petitioner was nominated subsequently during investigation only on the basis of an alleged extra-judicial confession, which is a weak piece of evidence and requires strict scrutiny during trial. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that there is no direct eye- witness account against the petitioner. It is argued that the complainant reached the place of occurrence only after receiving information from the deceased and the injured witness, who had initially disclosed that two unknown persons with covered faces had committed the assault. Therefore, the subsequent implication of the petitioner is doubtful. 3.2 It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of a takua from the petitioner does not connect him with the fatal injuries. Learned counsel submits that as per the post-mortem report, the fatal injury was a severe head injury, whereas the alleged weapon recovered from the petitioner is a pointed weapon and no blood stains were found on the said weapon. It is contended that the medical evidence does not corroborate the alleged role attributed to the petitioner. 3.3 Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of parity as co-accused Bikramjit Singh has already been granted KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-27733-2026 4 regular bail by this Court and other co-accused have also been enlarged on bail. It is argued that the petitioner stands on an equal or better footing, as his implication is also based upon the same extra-judicial confession and there is no independent material connecting him with the offence. 3.3 It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody since 17.07.2023, the investigation stands completed and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents, undertakes not to misuse the concession of bail and shall abide by any condition imposed by this Court. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 21.07.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 03 years 04 days. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as the case pertains to murder and attempt to murder. It is contended that during investigation, the involvement of the petitioner surfaced on the basis of the extra-judicial confession made before Panch Ranjit Singh and other material collected by the investigating agency. 6.1 Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner had a motive on account of a previous dispute with deceased Gurmail Singh and had conspired with the co-accused to commit the offence. It is argued that the recovery of the weapon of offence and the wallet of the deceased at the KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-27733-2026 5 instance of the petitioner further connects him with the crime. Learned State counsel submits that the medical evidence, statements of witnesses and investigation material establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. 7. Be that as it may, considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioner, who has remained in custody since 17.07.2023, and the fact that the investigation stands completed and the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. It is further noticed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, which was initially registered against unknown persons, and his implication surfaced subsequently during investigation on the basis of an alleged extra-judicial confession and disclosure statement. The alleged recovery of a weapon (takua) at the instance of the petitioner and the role attributed to him are matters which would require appreciation of evidence during the course of trial. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner stands on a better footing than co-accused Kulwant Singh who was granted the bail by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2026 in CRM-M-37545-2026, who is alleged to have inflicted the fatal injuries with a kirpan, whereas no fatal or life-threatening injury is specifically attributed to the petitioner. The medical evidence, as available on record, would be a matter of appreciation during trial, particularly with regard to the nature of injuries and the alleged weapon attributed to each accused. Further, the co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner and the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time to KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-27733-2026 6 conclude, the continued incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. 8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency. 2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-27733-2026 7 3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change. 7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-27733-2026 8 concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 22.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh