Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kulwinder Singh Alias Kinda vs State Of Punjab on 18 November, 2025

                                                                            1

CRM-
CRM-M-59711-
      59711-2025




226
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                               CRM-
                               CRM-M-59711-
                                     59711-2025

Kulwinder Singh @ Kinda
                                                                 ....Petitioner
                                                                   Petitioner
                                       Versus

State of Punjab
                                                                ....Respondent

Date of decision: November 18
                           18, 2025
Date of Uploading: November 18, 2025

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:    Mr. P.B.S. Goraya, Advocate,
            Mr. S.S. Bhullar, Advocate and
            Mr. S.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab.

                                        *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present third petition has been filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ''BNSS') for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. No.15 dated 19.01.2024,,

registered for the offences punishable under Section Sections 25(6), (7), (8), 54 & 59

of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'Arms Act') Act'), at Police Station City Moga,

District Moga.

2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that

Parminder Singh @ Pinda, Pinda, son of Darshan Singh, and Kulwinder Singh @

Kinda (petitioner herein), herein), son of Baldev Singh, both residents of Buttar

Kalan, District Moga, were members of a gang led by the notorious gangster

1 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-59711- 59711-2025

Navdeep Singh @ John Buttar, son of Tek Singh, also a resident of Buttar

Kalan, District Moga. It is further alleged that the said gangster had supplied

a large quantity of arms and ammunition to Parminder Singh and the

petitioner. Based on secret information received, it was reported that the

accused were present in the parking area behind the District Courts, Moga,

in front of the office of the Department of Education, Moga. They were

allegedly waiting for someone while seated in a white Hyundai i20 car

bearing registration No.DL-2C-AR-4201, and it was suspected that they

could be apprehended with a substantial quantity of firearms if a raid was

conducted. Acting on this information, a raid was carried out. Both

accused--Parminder Singh and Kulwinder Singh (petitioner herein)--were

apprehended while attempting to flee in the said i20 vehicle. During the

personal search of Parminder Singh @ Pinda, one .32 bore automatic pistol

was recovered from his left fold, and another black-coloured .32 bore pistol

was recovered from his right fold. Upon unloading, two live cartridges were

found in the first pistol and one live cartridge in the second. During the

personal search of the petitioner, one country-made .32 bore pistol was

recovered from his left fold. Upon unloading, two live cartridges were

recovered from one .32 bore pistol and one live cartridge from the second

pistol. Further, from the dashboard of the car, officers recovered one

country-made .30 bore pistol and one .32 bore revolver. Upon unloading the

revolver, two live cartridges were recovered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner

is in custody since 19.01.2024. Learned counsel has iterated that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned

counsel has further argued that there is nothing substantive evidence

2 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-59711- 59711-2025

available with the prosecution against the petitioner that alleged recovered

weapons were used anywhere in the crime. Learned counsel has urged that

co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted concession of regular

bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 08.10.2025

CRM--M-42306 passed in CRM 42306--2025. Learned counsel has further urged that the

petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular

bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature,

and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated

17.11.2025, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through

the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 19.01.2024, whereinafter, the

investigation was carried out and the challan has been presented on

15.03.2024. Co-accused of the petitioner has been granted concession of

regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, as aforesaid. Culmination

of trial, of-course, will take its own time. The rival contentions raised at Bar

given rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the

course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into

these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing

tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner

absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution

evidence.

3 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-59711- 59711-2025

6.1. Indubitably, the present petition is the third attempt by the

petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner

was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.09.2024. However, keeping in view the

entirety of the factual matrix of the case in hand; especially, in view of the

factum of the petitioner having suffered extended incarceration for more

than 01 year and pace of trial; this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider

the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to

CRA--S-2332 a judgment of this Court passed in CRA 2332--2023 titled as Rafiq Khan

versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under:

"10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:

I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.

III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed."

6.2. As per custody certificate dated 17.11.2025 filed by learned

State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period

of 01 year, 07 months and 06 days. Further, as per the said custody

certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However,

4 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-59711- 59711-2025

this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession

of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made

out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the

facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir

Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a

Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of

Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this

Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of

Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3)

RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as undertrial is

not warranted in the factual milieu of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in

addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty

Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport(s), if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number(s) to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number(s) without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.