Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kewal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 November, 2025
CRM-M-61556-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
219
CRM-M-61556-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.11.2025
Kewal Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.159 dated 27.09.2024,
registered under Sections 103, 191(3) and 3(5) of BNS at Police Station Lehra,
District Sangrur.
2. Learned Senior counsel contends that the petitioner has been in
custody for 1 year and more than 1 month. He was not named in the FIR, his name
surfaced on the disclosure statement of co-accused Gurjant Singh, with the
allegations of having given a blow with the baseball bat, however, as per the
PMR, there is no injury corresponding to the same, all being incise wounds, some
deep and others superficial. He alleges false implication in the case, being the
nephew of the main accused, who is in custody and the allegations against whom
are of having given injury with the axe over the head of the deceased. Charges
1 of 4
have been framed on 31.01.2025, however, out of 17 prosecution witnesses, 3
including eye witness have been examined. The petitioner is involved in 1 more
case under Section 379 IPC, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the
judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificate dated 09.11.2025, filed by the learned State
counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1
year, 1 month and 6 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are
specific allegations against the petitioner of having caused injuries on the
deceased in connivance with other co-accused and a motor-cycle stands recovered
from him. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to
stage and the petitioner being on bail in other case.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the
basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the
accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as
possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that
the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 1 month and 6 days; on bail in other
case; charges were framed on 31.01.2025, however, 14 more prosecution
witness still remain to be examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable
time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right
2 of 4
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is
allowed.
8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during
the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each
and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific
order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of
which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce,
induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer
or tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile
number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not
change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any
reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it
shall be done only with prior information to the learned
trial Court.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other
condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the
petitioner.
9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioner by this order.
10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein
3 of 4
above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be
construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
10.11.2025
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
