Tejbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 April, 2026

Author: Anoop Chitkara

Bench: Anoop Chitkara

CRA-D-1443-2025
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-D-1443-2025

JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART UPLOADED ON
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED PRONOUNCED OR
ON FULL
30.03.2026 21.04.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 21.04.2026

Tejbir Singh ...Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab and another ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Present: Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate
Mr. Dhruv Trehan, Advocate
Mr. Rangat Joshi, Advocate
Mr. Amanpreet Singh Dhiman, Advocate and
Ms. Shubh Karman Kaur Kaura, Advocate
for the appellant(s).

Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

                                    FIR No.             Dated        Police Station   Section
                                    05                  04.01.2023   Sadar Jagraon    302, 452, 120B, 212, 216, 148, 149 IPC
                                                                                      and 25/54/59 of Arms Act and Sections
                                                                                      17, 18, 18B, 19, 20, 25 of The Unlawful
                                                                                      Activities   (Prevention) Act      1967
                                                                                      (Amendment 2012)

Bail Application number before the Sessions CIS No.BA-8303-2025 Court Date of Decision 25.09.2025

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 25.09.2025, the appellant had come up before this Court by filing the present appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

ANJU RANI 2026.04.21 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-1443-2025

2. Per the custody certificate dated 29.03.2026, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

                                Sr. No.             FIR No.         Date       Offenses                      Police Station
                                1                   12              11.02.2025 25-54-59 of Arms Act          Sirhind

3. The appellant's counsel submits that the appellant would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the appellant repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and to which the appellant shall have no objection. Counsel for the appellant further submits that he shall not use his right of speech and expression beyond what is permitted under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

4. The State's counsel opposes the bail.

5. Facts of the case are being taken from the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which reads as follows:-

"As per prosecution version, instant FIR was registered on the basis of statement of complainant Jagroop Singh to the effect that he was an agriculturalist. They are three brothers and one sister. Elder sister Paramjit Kaur is wife of Gulshan Singh, Paramjit Singh is younger to him and Jaspal Singh is youngest brother. His brother Paramjit Singh was doing the work of electrician in the Village and they were separate in mess, but had common courtyard. On 04.01.2023 at about 02:00 PM, he and his brother were talking while sitting together in the courtyard. His wife Manjit Kaur and sister in law Baljinder Kaur were also present in the house. He got up to serve fodder to the cattle. His brother Paramjit Singh went inside the Kothi. In the meanwhile, two persons of the age about 22/25 years, out of whom, one was a bearded person and another was wearing black cap, entered their house. They called the name of Raja son of Paramjit Singh. In the meanwhile, his brother Paramjit Singh came outside in the courtyard. Abovesaid two unknown persons fired a shot to his brother Paramjit Singh. On raising alarm, his cousin Ranjit Singh @ Rana at once came there running and the assailants ran away from the house towards outside. They chased them, but the abovesaid persons fled away towards Dholan road on I-10 car bearing registration No.DL 2CAE 2545, which was lying parked outside the house. Apart from them, another person was sitting on driver seat, who did not come outside. When he went near his brother Paramjit ANJU RANI 2026.04.21 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-1443-2025

Singh, he saw that his brother had received bullet injuries on chest and head and was in unconscious state. The video recording of the entire incident was recorded in the CCTV cameras installed in their house. After arranging the vehicle, they took Paramjit Singh to Civil Hospital, Jagraon where he was declared dead.

During investigation, on 05.01.2023 on the statement of complainant, Sukhdev Singh, Lovejinder Kaur, Kiranpreet Kaur, Navjot Singh, Lovepreet Singh were nominated as accused and offence under Sections 452, 120-B IPC was added. On 05.01.2023, Mandeep Singh @ Dharu and Arashdeep Sigh@ Arsh Dalla were also nominated as accused. On the same day, Lovejinder Kaur and Kiranpreet Kaur were arrested. On 06.01.2023 Mandeep Singh @ Dharu was brought on production warrants from Central Jail, Kapurthala and was arrested in this case. On the same day, on the interrogation of accused Lovejinder Kaur, accused Charanjit Singh was nominated and on 07.01.2023, he was brought on production warrants and was arrested in this case. On the same day, accused Sukhdev Singh was arrested. On the interrogation of accused and Charanjit Singh, Abhinav and Tejbir Singh (present applicant) were nominated as accused and it was disclosed that Arsh Dalla had arranged both Abhinav and Tejbir Singh for committing murder of Paramjit Singh. On 08.01.2023, Navjot Singh and Lovepreet Singh were arrested. During further investigation, it was found that Shivani Kalia gave shelter to Abhinav @ Abhi by concealing this fact from her parents. Accordingly, offence under Sections 212, 216 of IPC was added. Thereafter, on 08.01.2023, accused were nominated. On 09.01.2023, accused Shavina @ Shivani was arrested in this case. On 14.01.2023, offence under Sections 17, 18, 18-B, 19, 20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was added and Rajpreet Singh @ Raja Bomb, who accompanied the shooters at the place of occurrence was nominated. On 24.01.2023, accused Abhinav @Abhi was arrested On 29.01.2023, on the demarcation of accused Anibhav @Abhi, he got recovered one pistol 32 bore along with four live cartridges. On 25.02.2023, accused Tejbir Singh (applicant) was arrested. On 27.02.2023, accused Honey @ Kekra and Himmat @ Shubham were brought on production warrants from Central Jail, Bathinda and they were arrested after seeking permission from the Court. After completion of investigation, challan against Tejbir Singh, Abhinav, Sukhdev Singh, Charanjit Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Shabina @ Shivani Kalia was presented in the Court."

ANJU RANI 2026.04.21 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-1443-2025

6. As per the custody certificate dated 29.03.2026, the custody of the appellant in this case is 03 years & 27 days.

7. It would be appropriate to refer to role of the appellant as mentioned in the status report dated 25.02.2026, which reads as follows:-

"That the role of the Appellant Tejbir Singh is that Sukhdev Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh had got registered FIR No.55 dated 19-05-2022 under sections 306/506 IPC in PS Badhni Kalan against nephew Rajvir Singh Raja Gill, sister Paramjit Kaur wife of Gulshan Singh, niece Gurmeet Kaur daughter of Gulshan Singh residents of village Lopon. Sukhdev Singh has stated in the FIR that his son Dilpreet Singh and Gurmeet Kaur daughter of Gulshan Singh wanted to marry each other. There was marriage ceremony of the elder niece of deceased Paramjit Singh who had come from Canada. Dilpreet Singh also attended that marriage. There was dispute between Rajvir Singh @ Raja Gill and Dilpreet Singh son of Sukhdev Singh. His sister Paramjit Kaur, niece Gurmeet Kaur and Rajvir Singh @ Raja Gill refused to solemnize marriage of Gurmeet Kaur with Dilpreet Singh son of Sukhdev Singh. Due to this reason, Dilpreet Singh had committed suicide. Sukhdev Singh has doubt that his son Dilpreet Singh has committed suicide due to refusal for marriage with Gurmeet Kaur by these persons. At the direction of Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh Dala from Canada, the Appellant-Tejbir Singh, co-accused Abinav and Rajpreet Singh @ Raja Bomb have committed the murder of Paramjit Singh by firing upon him. Thus, the petitioner is one of the assailants who committed the murder of Paramjit Singh."

8. There is evidence of the appellant's involvement with the present offence. Thus, in the entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

9. In UOI Rep. by Insp. of NIA v. Barakathullah, [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1011; 2024 INSC 452, May 22, 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. The Central Government in Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division having received a credible information that the office bearers, members and cadres of Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization have been spreading its extremist ideology across Tamil Nadu, by establishing State Headquarters at Purasaiwakkam, Chennai and also offices in various districts of Tamil Nadu and that through their frontal Organizations like Campus Front of India, National Women's Front, Social Democratic Party of India etc., they conspire for committing terrorist acts, raise funds for committing terrorist activities and recruit members for furthering their extremist ideology, and that the frontal organizations and PFI were involved in the recruitment of members to various prescribed terrorist organizations, passed an order on 16th September 2022, in exercise of the powers conferred

ANJU RANI 2026.04.21 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-1443-2025

under sub-section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NIA Act'), directing the National Investigation Agency to take up investigation of the said case. In view of the said order, an FIR being RC-42/2022/NIA/DLI came to be registered on 19.09.2022 against the present respondents and other members and office bearers of PFI for the offences under Section 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and Section 13,17,18,18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "UAPA").

[22]. In the instant case, we are satisfied from the chargesheet as also the other material/documents relied upon by the appellant that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the respondents are prima facie true and that the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43(D)(5) would be applicable for not releasing the respondents on bail. Having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences, previous criminal history of the respondents as mentioned in the charge-sheet, the period of custody undergone by the respondents being hardly one and half years, the severity of punishment prescribed for the alleged offences and prima facie material collected during the course of investigation, the impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. We are conscious of the legal position that we should be slow in interfering with the order when the bail has been granted by the High Court, however it is equally well settled that if such order of granting bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it must be set aside.

10. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

11. Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE

21.04.2026 Anju rani

Whether speaking/reasoned YES Whether reportable NO

ANJU RANI 2026.04.21 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh