-1- CRM-M-38834-2026 (O&M) 110+233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38834-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 RAMJI ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. CRM-29437-2026 Allowed as prayed for. Annexures P-5 to P-23 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. The Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place. CRM-M-38834-2026 The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.44 dated 18.02.2021 registered under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of IPC, 1860, and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot. 2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Sukhchain Singh and reads as under:- “Statement of Sukhchain Singh, son of Sardar Banta Singh, resident of Bhan Singh Colony, Street No. 04, Faridkot, currently residing at Jarman Colony, Street No. 01, near Gurdwara Sahib, Faridkot, age approximately 66 years, Mobile No. 90194-00008. I have stated that I am a resident of the aforesaid address and I am an agriculturist. I have 03 KUSUM 2026.09.03 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-38834-2026 (O&M) -2- children, of which the elder two are daughters and the youngest is my son, Gurlal Singh, whose age is about 33-34 years. All three of my children are married. My son Gurlal Singh and I live in the same house. Today, my son Gurlal Singh and I had gone to the market in our Skoda car, bearing registration number PB-04- AD-1440, to buy some household items and for other work. My son Gurlal Singh dropped me off at Jubli Chowk and himself went to the office of Vinu Goyal Immigration. I started buying some items. When I was returning towards the car of my son after buying items from Sethi Dairy, I met my relative Gurjaswinder Singh, son of Pargat Singh, resident of village Jhok Sarkari, District Faridkot. We were both talking and walking towards my son Gurlal Singh's car. The time would have been around 04:30 to 04:45 PM. When my son came towards his car, right before my eyes, from behind him, from the direction of Jubli Chowk, 02 unknown, clean-shaven boys, one of whom was about 06 feet tall and the other about 5-1/2 feet tall, started firing continuously at my son Gurlal Singh with their respective pistols. They shot my son 12-13 times. After shooting my son Gurlal Singh, both boys fled from the spot towards Sethi Dairy. Along with them, 05-06 other unknown boys were running away, raising lalkaras. My son Gurlal Singh was seriously injured. My son has been shot as part of a deep-rooted conspiracy because my son is the President of the Youth Congress, District Faridkot, and a member of the Zila Parishad, Faridkot. We arranged for a vehicle and brought him to the Medical Hospital, Faridkot, where the doctors declared him deceased. My son Gurlal Singh has died due to gunshot injuries. Appropriate legal action should be taken against the unknown boys who shot and murdered him. I can identify those unknown boys if they are brought before me. I have dictated my statement in the presence of Gurjaswinder Singh, son of Pargat Singh, resident of village Jhok Sarkari, District Faridkot, which has been read over to me and is correct. Sd/- Sukhchain Singh.” KUSUM 2026.09.03 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-38834-2026 (O&M) -3- 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as per the allegations levelled, the petitioner-Ramji provided shelter to the assailants one day before the occurrence. One Gagandeep Singh @ Peda, who provided shelter to the accused after the occurrence, has been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 20.03.2024. As the petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2026 but only 10 of the 55 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that Ramji (petitioner) was named in the supplementary statement of the complainant as also in the disclosure statement of the assailants to the effect that he had provided them shelter prior to the occurrence and had also provided a scooter for the purpose of conducting a recce. The allegations levelled against the petitioner do not entitle him to the concession of bail as prayed for. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is not alleged to be one of the assailants, that he is in custody since 09.02.2026 and that only 10 of the 55 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2026 but only 10 of the 55 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required. KUSUM 2026.09.03 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-38834-2026 (O&M) -4- 7. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and petitioner-Ramji S/o Satpal Singh is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 8. The petitioner shall appear before the Police Station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the Trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the cases mentioned in the custody certificate dated 01.09.2026. 9. If the petitioner or his family members/associates make any at- tempt to contact/threaten/intimidate the witnesses in the present case, the State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted vide this order. 10. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause. 11. The petition stands disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 02.09.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No KUSUM 2026.09.03 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh