CRM-M-22038-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219 CRM-M-22038-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:27.07.2026 Rupinder Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Jaskirat Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.277, dated 17.12.2023, registered under Sections 302, 323, 120-B of IPC (offence under Section 325 of IPC was added subsequently vide DDR No.27 dated 13.03.2024). His first petition bearing CRM-M-59756-2025 had been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 19.12.2025. 2. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Harbans Singh alleging therein that on 16.12.2023, a wedding function had been performed in the house of his uncle Kewal Singh which ended in the afternoon. A DJ (music instrument) was got installed in the street by his uncle. Even after the ceremonies were over, the petitioner and HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22038-2026 (O&M) -2- his family members, who are residing in the neighbourhood, insisted for playing DJ for dancing. They kept on dancing till 8:30 PM on the tunes of the DJ. When the complainant asked the petitioner and his family members to stop the DJ, they felt offended. All of them then connived with each other and gathered in the street while being armed with weapons and bricks etc. and then opened an assault upon the family members of the complainant including the complainant. Accused Nachhattar Singh hit the calf of right leg of the Gurmail Singh with his daang, whereas the petitioner struck a blow with a brick on the head of Smt. Gurmail Kaur, mother of the complainant. The other remaining members of the family of complainant were also injured. On raising alarm, assailants fled away from the spot. The injured had been taken to the hospital. The mother of the complainant succumbed to the head injuries sustained by her in the hospital. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 18.12.2023. Investigation stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is in custody for a period of over 02 years and 07 months. Co-accused Nachater Singh @ Nachhattar Singh @ Nachtar Singh, Arjan Singh @ Arjun Singh @ Bobby, Hargobind Singh and Gurpreet Singh have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be given the same benefit. It is a case of sudden fight between members of two groups. A false story has been concocted against him and there is no incriminating evidence to connect him with the crime. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. However, examination-in-chief of the material witnesses has been conducted and there are no chances of the petitioner's intimidating them. His further incarceration HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22038-2026 (O&M) -3- militates against his fundamental right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The delay in conclusion of trial is not attributable to him. With these broad submissions, it is submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition being the second petition is not maintainable. There is no material change in the circumstances since the date of dismissal of first petition. The allegations against the petitioner are serious and specific in nature. Three prosecution witnesses stand examined, one has been given up and the trial is going at a proper pace. It is, therefore, urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have caused injuries on the person of victim Gurmail Kaur, leading to her death. The fatal injury has been attributed to the petitioner. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against him. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is in prolonged custody, however, in heinous crimes like the present one, an accused cannot be held entitled to seek concession of bail as a matter of right only on account of his prolonged incarceration. The petitioner stands accused of a heinous crime punishable with capital punishment or life imprisonment. It is also well-settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22038-2026 (O&M) -4- for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. It is also well settled proposition of law that mere prolonged period of custody is not a sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made in Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC (SC), Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 and State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). 7. In the light of the foregoing legal principles and other circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 8. It is clarified that any observation made in this order is only for deciding this petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits. 9. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 27.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document