CRM-M-12117-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12117-2026 Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 27.07.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 28.07.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 28.07.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J :- The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 25 dated 12.02.2025 registered under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station Sadar, Bathinda, Distsrict Bathinda. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written statement recorded by the complainant- Satbir, alleging therein that his brother, Javed, i.e the victim, was working at the dhaba of one Vijay Kumar at Bathinda. On 11.02.2025, he had gone to meet his brother. On the same day, at about 4:00 p.m., Javed left the dhaba after informing them that he was going PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12117-2026 -2- for a walk. At about 5:40 p.m., when the complainant along with Vijay Kumar and one Ramesh Kumar, an employee of the dhaba, was present there, he saw his brother rushing towards the dhaba, with three persons chasing him while raising exhortations not to leave him alive. Within the sight of the complainant, one of them threw a stone at his brother, which hit him on the head. The other two persons also threw stones at his brother, causing him to fall to the ground and become unconscious. The complainant and his companions raised a clamour, whereupon the assailants fled from the spot. They rushed to the victim and took him to the hospital for treatment, but he died on the way. By alleging that he could identify the assailants on seeing them, the complainant prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. 3. During investigation, the statements of the other eyewitnesses, namely Vijay Kumar and Ramesh Kumar were also recorded, on the basis of which Sandeep Kumar, Deepak Kumar @ Deepu and the present petitioner were nominated as accused on 12.02.2025. Sandeep Kumar and the present petitioner were apprehended on the same day, whereas accused Deepak Kumar @ Deepu was arrested on 13.02.2025. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. Accused Deepak Kumar @ Deepu was found to be a juvenile. Investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated. He was not named in the FIR. No specific act has been attributed to him. His antecedents are clean. The eyewitness Vijay Kumar has since been examined before the learned trial Court and has not supported the PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12117-2026 -3- prosecution version. Even the complainant stands examined. The petitioner was not present at the spot. He is in custody since long. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. He had no motive to assault the victim. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He was duly identified by the complainant as one of the assailants. In his sworn deposition partly recorded before the learned trial Court, the complainant has supported the prosecution version and has identified the petitioner as well as the co-accused. The allegations against the petitioner are quite grave in nature. The trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in its conclusion. Eyewitness Ramesh Kumar is yet to be examined. There are chances of the petitioner intimidating the remaining material witnesses or absconding, if extended the benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have assaulted the victim by throwing stones at him, thereby causing his death. Though he has not been identified by eyewitness Vijay Kumar, however, he has been duly identified by the complainant and another eyewitness, Ramesh Kumar is yet to be examined. As such, merely on account of the hostile testimony of one eyewitness, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner is PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12117-2026 -4- innocent. The allegations against him are serious in nature. There exists a genuine apprehension that his release may imperil the course of trial and undermine the integrity of the trial and could pose a risk by influencing unexamined witnesses or tampering with evidence. 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 complainant 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. In light of the foregoing legal principles, this Court finds no compelling ground to grant bail to the petitioner. 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 already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 28th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document