[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh @ Kuldeep Suniar vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-21176-2026 -1-
221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21176-2026
Date of decision : 24.04.2026
Kuldeep Singh @ Kuldeep Suniar .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. H.S. Multani, Advocate and
Mr. Ramaninder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular
bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.351 dated 14.08.2018, under
Sections 306, 506 of IPC (corresponding Sections 108, 351(2) of BNS),
registered at Police Station City Barnala.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case
was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Satnam Singh.
It was alleged that on 13.08.2018, at about 02:00 P.M., he along with his
father Sheetal Singh and mother Savinder Kaur was present in the house.
His father Sheetal Singh was dealing in the business of buffaloes and his
money was in circulation in the market in the said business. Kuldeep Singh
(present petitioner) came to their house and raised demand of money.
Sheetal Singh tried to pacify him by saying that he would give money to
him after making arrangement of the same, but Kuldeep Singh was
extending threats of life to his father and being fed up with the attitude of
Kuldeep Singh, his father poured some poisonous substance in the glass
and consumed the same and thereafter started vomiting. On seeing the
condition of his father, Kuldeep Singh ran away. Satnam Singh got
admitted his father to Civil Hospital, Barnala, from where he was referred
to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where his father had died. Thus the request
was made to take legal action against the culprits. On registration of the
FIR, the investigation commenced. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested
on 25.02.2026. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Barnala praying for the grant of bail, however after hearing
both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Barnala declined the bail application filed by the petitioner
vide order dated 03.04.2026. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is
before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant
of regular bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted
that on registration of the FIR, petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on
04.09.2018 by the trial Court due to his absence during trial. Thereafter, he
was declared a Proclaimed Offender on 13.11.2025 and after about 3
months, petitioner was arrested on 25.02.2026 and since then, he is behind
the bars. He has submitted that from the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is apparent that no offence under Section 306 read with Section 107
IPC is made out as no instigation can be inferred in the facts and
circumstances of the case. He has submitted that the petitioner is more than
60 years of age who is confined to the wheelchair. To buttress his
arguments, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has no
criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case. He
thus, has submitted that the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State however has
vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
He has submitted that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail but he
was declared a Proclaimed Offender as he misused the concession of bail.
He, on instructions, has submitted that out of 15 prosecution witnesses, no
witness has been examined till date. He has placed on record custody
certificate of the petitioner.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on
04.09.2018 but as he remained absent, he was declared a Proclaimed
Offender on 13.11.2025. It has been contended before this Court that the
offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC is not even made out
against the petitioner. Custody certificate produced would show that the
petitioner has completed incarceration of 01 month and 29 days as on
23.04.2026. Custody certificate further shows that the petitioner is not
involved in any other case. Out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, no
witness has been examined till date.
6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after
the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by
both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from
commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the
arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of
the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out
a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed
and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing
bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
24.04.2026 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
m.sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
