Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lovepreet Singh Alias Labhu vs State Of Punjab on 20 November, 2025

CRM-M No.64391 of 2025                                                      -1-


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH
244
                                       *****

                                                     CRM-M No.64391 of 2025
                                                   Date of decision : 20.11.2025
                                                  Date of uploading : 20.11.2025


Lovepreet Singh @ Labhu                                     .............Petitioner
                                         Versus
State of Punjab                                              .......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate, for the petitioner

           Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab

           ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present 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 FIR No.207 dated 23.10.2024 under

Sections 103, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25, 27

of Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 249, 253 and 61(2) of BNS and Sections 6,

7, 54, 59 of Arms Act added later on), registered at Police Station Beas,

District Amritsar (Rural).

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present

petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-

'Statement of Sarabjit Singh son of Puran Singh, resident of Patti Gopi Ki, Sathiala, PS Beas, aged about 70 years, Mobile No. 98725-72033. Stated that I am resident of above said address and I have two sons

1 of 5

whose names are Gurmit Singh and Gurdeep Singh Gokha. Upon them, Gurmit Singh is elder and living in Italy and younger Gurdeep Singh alias Gokha is a Commission Agent under the name and style Bal Trading Company, Sathiala at Dana Mandi, Sathiala. Today, on 23.10.2024, I came to my son Gurdeep Singh Commission Agent Shop at Dana Mandi, Sathiala where Satnam Singh son of Jarnail Singh resident of Sathiala also came to meet Gurdeep Singh. Then time at about 1:20 PM, my son Gurdeep Singh told to us that you were sit here, I will come after urinating on the side of Canal. After few minutes, I heard the noise of gun Shots outside then I and Satnam Singh came outside in hurry and saw that my son Gurdeep Singh was lying on the ground smeared with blood due to gunshots injury. On raising alarm, three unknown persons run away from the spot along with their respective weapons on a Motorcycle from the side of Canal. Then I and Satnam Singh arranged the vehicle and took Gurdeep Singh to Civil Hospital Baba Bakala Sahib where Gurdeep Singh was died during the Check Up by Doctor and Doctor declared him dead. I along with Satnam Singh coming before you to inform you leaving behind Hardeep Singh son of Charanjit Singh resident of Sathiala in Civil Hospital, you met us. The unknown three persons killed my son Gurdeep Singh by fired shots, legal action be taken against them. Statement got recorded, found correct.'

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

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

further argued that the petitioner is in custody since 26.11.2024. Learned

counsel has further iterated that prime prosecution case set up against the

petitioner is that he had harboured main accused, who had actually

committed the murder. Learned counsel has further iterated that similarly

placed co-accused, namely, Jobanjit Singh has already been extended the

concession of regular bail by this Court, on 12.8.2025 passed in CRM-M-

18911-2025. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

2 of 5

arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in

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

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated

19.11.2025 in Court, 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 present petitioner was arrested on 26.11.2024,

whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented

on 27.1.2025. Total 35 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none

has been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of trial

will take long. The rival contentions raised at Bar give shall be gone into

during course of the trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve

deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the

trial. It is not in dispute before this Court that the present petitioner stands

at parity with one Jobanjit Singh, who has been extended the concession

of regular bail vide order dated 12.8.2025 passed in CRM-M No.18911 of

2025. 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.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 19.11.2025 filed by the learned

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

of 11 months and 23 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the

petitioner is stated to be involved in 3 more cases/FIR(s). However, this

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

3 of 5

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 an undertrial

is not warranted in the facts and circumstances 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, if any, with the trial Court.

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

4 of 5

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those

which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed

hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the

State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the

petitioner.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 20.11.2025 Ashwanii

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No