[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Labh Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 April, 2026
120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20992-2026
Date of decision: 18.04.2026
LABH SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Parshant Gaurav, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.
****
SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in case bearing FIR No.154 dated 05.08.2023 registered under
Sections 302, 307, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short 'IPC') 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
armed with Gandasi, Labh Singh (petitioner herein) armed with Daang,
Gurdeep Singh armed with wooden Phatti (plank) having nails, Nirmal Singh
armed with Takua, Rana Singh armed with Daang, Jashanpreet Singh
committed murder of Rajinder Singh and also caused injuries to the
complainant-Mandeep Singh.
As per allegations levelled by 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. Petitioner along
with all the accused attacked with their respective weapons, upon the
complainant and his brother-Rajinder Singh. The petitioner has been
summoned as an additional accused by learned trial Court under Section 319
Cr.P.C.
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 along with 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; the case of the
petitioner is on same footing with co-accused, namely, Gurnaib Singh, who
has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide
order dated 17.04.2026 passed in CRM-M No.20052 of 2026; co-accused
namely Nirmal Singh, Ranbir Singh @ Rana @ Ranvir Singh and Randhir
Singh have been granted the concession of regular bail by Coordinate Benches
of this Court vide orders dated 07.04.2025, 30.04.2025 and 08.09.2025 passed
in CRM-M Nos.479, 21898 & 28331 of 2025 (Annexures P-4 to P-6
respectively) and 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 that during the occurrence, the petitioner
was armed with a daang 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 petitioner; the 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 this Court; and the petitioner is having clean & 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 daang; injury caused to the deceased
namely, Rajender Singh is attributed to co-accused-Gurdeep Singh who is
already in custody; petitioner is having clean and clear antecedents and is not
involved in any other criminal activity; 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 :-
"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 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 along with 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)
April 18, 2026 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
