[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnaib Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 April, 2026
CRM-M-20052-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104
CRM-M-20052-2026 (O&M)
Decided on: 17.04.2026
GURNAIB SINGH ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA
Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Parshant, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Arshdeep Singh Kler, Advocate for the complainant.
****
SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. (Section 482 BNSS, 2023) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.154 dated 05.08.2023 under
Sections 302, 307, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149, 120-B IPC, 1860 registered
at Police Station Samana (Sadar Samana), District Patiala.
2. The FIR in the present case has been registered against the
present petitioner on the basis of complaint made by Mandeep Singh on
the ground that co-accused Randhir Singh armed with pistol, Gurnaib
Singh (the present petitioner) armed with Gandasi, Labh Singh armed
with Daang, Gurdeep Singh, armed with wooden nail Phatti, Nirmal
Singh armed with Takua, Rana Singh armed with Daang, Jashanpreet
CRM-M-20052-2026 (O&M) -2-
Singh committed murder of Rajinder Singh and also caused injuries to
the complainant-Mandeep Singh.
As per allegations levelled by the complainant, co-accused
Randhir Singh brandished his pistol in the air and raised instigation
(lalkara). Thereafter co-accused Gurdeep Singh gave an injury on the
head of deceased Rajinder Singh with a wooden plank on which nails
were fitted. Thereafter co-accused Nirmal Singh gave blow of reverse
side of Takhua on forehead of complainant and co-accused Ranbir Singh
@ Rana gave a stick blow on the right shoulder of the complainant
namely Mandeep Singh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are
total eight accused in the present FIR and final report was presented only
against 05 of them whereas the present petitioner alongwith other co-
accused were declared innocent by the police; later on, the petitioner was
summoned as an additional accused by the trial Court under section 319
Cr.P.C., however, no injury has been attributed to the petitioner. It is
further contended that as per MLR of deceased Rajinder Singh
(Annexure P-2), the deceased sustained only one injury on his head
which is attributed to co-accused Gurdeep Singh and as per MLR of
complainant Mandeep Singh, he sustained total four injuries out of which
none has been attributed to the present petitioner; co-accused namely
Nirmal Singh, Ranbir Singh and Randhir Singh have been granted the
concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
CRM-M-20052-2026 (O&M) -3-
(Annexures P-4 to P-6); the petitioner is ready and willing to join the
investigation.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, who is present in Court,
accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposed the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner while submitting on instructions from
ASI-Ranjit Singh, that during the occurrence, the petitioner was armed
with a Gandasi and formed a part of unlawful assembly. He, however,
does not dispute the fact that the present petitioner is not required for
investigation or custodial interrogation. Further, learned state counsel
fairly admitted that no injury is attributed to the present petitioner; main
injury caused to the deceased-Rajender Singh is attributed to his co-
accused namely, Gurdeep Singh; three of the co-accused have been
granted the concession of regular bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court;
and petitioner is having clean and clear antecedents.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer
made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Heard.
8. Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the
case and the allegations against the present petitioner that he formed a
part of unlawful assembly and was armed with Gandasi; injury caused to
the deceased namely, Rajender Singh is attributed to co-accused-Gurdeep
Singh who is already in custody; none of the injuries inflicted on the
CRM-M-20052-2026 (O&M) -4-
complainant are attributed to the petitioner; this Court is of the
considered view that petitioner deserves the concession of relief of
anticipatory bail.
9. Grant of Anticipatory bail, in a case, where an accused is
summoned as an additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. is not
barred under the provisions of Cr.P.C. The criteria that is to be taken into
consideration while granting anticipatory bail remains same that is laid
down in section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, though summoned after being
added as an additional accused in the ongoing trial can verily lose his
liberty upon his appearance. There is no gainsaying that protection of
liberty is one of the most cherished objects of the Constitution as
reflected in Article 21 of the Constitution. Such a remedy therefore,
cannot be denied. However, it cannot be treated as a straightjacket
formula that in each and every case, where accused is summoned as
additional accused, he must be released on bail. Grant of anticipatory bail
is a matter of discretion of the Court depending upon the peculiar facts
and circumstances of each case.
10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Baljinder Singh and
another v. State of Punjab 2015 (3) RCR (Criminal) 950, while
considering the plea of anticipatory bail to an accused, who was
summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for commission of an offence under
section 302 IPC, held as under :-
CRM-M-20052-2026 (O&M) -5-
"7. There can, thus, be no doubt that the trial court
committed no error in summoning the petitioners as
additional accused in the instant case as their names figured
in the FIR and specific role has been attributed to them. The
question, however, remains whether they are entitled to
concession of pre-arrest bail. For considering this question,
principles laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The
State of Punjab AIR 1980 (SC) 1632 need to be recalled. It
was held therein that jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C
has to be exercised by wise and careful use of discretion. In
case an accused has a reason to believe that he would be
arrested for a non bailable offence, he would be entitled to
invoke the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Though no hard
and fast rule can be laid down for exercise of this power, it
would be taken on facts and circumstances of each case. In
the case in hand, since petitioners have been summoned to
face trial for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., on their
appearance before the court, they have a reasonable
apprehension that they would be taken in custody. Thus, plea
for anticipatory bail is not misconceived. Article 21 of the
Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty to its
citizens. Criminal law derives its source and substance from
the Constitution. All other laws are supplementary and
incidental to the principles laid down in the Constitution
(see Vikas v. State of Rajasthan's case (supra) paras 13,
14). Thus, such additional accused who do not intend to defy
law and are ready to face trial, their plea for anticipatory
bail can be considered, subject to the principles already laid
down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case (supra). Though
Section 438 Cr.P.C does not confer a right on such accused
to be granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, their
CRM-M-20052-2026 (O&M) -6-
plea would deserve consideration within the available
parameters. If appearance of additional accused can be
secured and the court is satisfied that they would cooperate
during the proceedings, their plea for anticipatory bail can
be accepted. It also needs to be emphasized that at the stage
of Section 319 Cr.P.C., some deposition of prosecution
witness(s) is before the court and on consideration of same
additional accused are summoned. However summoning
under Section 193 Cr.P.C. is only on the basis of material
accompanying the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. On
perusal of same, additional accused are arraigned. Thus,
such accused are entitled to pray for anticipatory bail on the
ground that their role was examined by the investigating
agency but they were found innocent."
11. The present petitioner is not required for any custodial
purpose and judicial custody of the petitioner is not required as he is
required to face the trial alongwith other co-accused. Since the trial will
take time to conclude, the petitioner is directed to appear before the trial
Court on the date fixed before the trial Court and if he appears/ surrender
before the said Court, the trial Court is directed to release him on interim
bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial
Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
(SUBHAS MEHLA)
JUDGE
17.04.2026
Sonia Puri
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
