[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jang Bahadar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-9060-2026 1
226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-9060-2026
Date of decision :29.04.2026
Jang Bahadar Singh ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Present second petition has been filed by the petitioner
praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.201 dated 21.06.2024,
under Sections 341, 323, 307, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 25 & 27 of
Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar
(Mohali).
2. As per the facts of the case, the present FIR was lodged on
the statement of complainant, namely, Harwinder Singh. It was alleged
that on 20.06.2024, wires of two electricity transformers installed in their
village got burnt because of which there was no electricity in the village.
The transformers was being repaired by the officials from Electricity
Department. It was alleged that when the repair of the transformer
installed behind the 'Khera' was going then people of the village gathered
at that place, where complainant, his brother Satnam Singh and his cousin
Lakhvir Singh were also present and Lakhvir Singh was helping the
electricians. It was alleged that at about 08:40 PM, co-accused Parminder
Singh @ Kala came to the spot and upon his arrival, he waylaid his cousin
Lakhvir Singh claiming that he has got supply of electricity snapped to
their house and started beating him and even tore his shirt by holding him
from his neck and pushed him on the ground. In the meantime, Jang
Bahadur Singh (present petitioner) armed with a loaded pistol/revolver
came to the spot. It was alleged that upon his arrival, he fired one gun shot
in the abdomen of Lakhvir Singh and another shot in chest of Satnam
Singh with intention to kill them. It was alleged that when the
complainant came forward to rescue them, then Jang Bahadur Singh fired
at the complainant also with the intention to kill him. However, he stepped
aside in order to save his life but still, the gun shot hit him on his right
arm. When the people of the village came forward to their rescue, the
aforesaid persons fled away from the spot along with their respective
weapons by threatening them with dire consequences. It was further
alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was that accused persons
were under the impression that Lakhvir Singh has got restored electric
supply to his house whereas he deliberately was not allowing to get their
electric supply restored. Thus, request was made to take legal action
against the accused. On registration of FIR, investigation commenced. On
completion of investigation, challan was presented. On framing of
charges, the trial commenced. Petitioner was arrested on 22.06.2024. The
petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar,
praying for grant of bail, however, finding no merit, the same was
declined after hearing both the sides by Learned trial Court vide order
dated 03.02.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier
approached this Court by way of filing of CRM-M-10787-2025, however,
the same was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 29.10.2025.
Hence, the petitioner is before this Court praying for grant of bail by way
of filing of present petition.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits
that the alleged incident had taken place due to the dispute of the supply
of electricity. He submits that the petitioner had a licensed revolver. He
submits that it was the pitch dark and the allegations against the petitioner
made are on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. He submits that
even otherwise the offence under Section 307 IPC is also not made out as
the alleged incident had taken place on the spur of the moment and thus,
there was no intention as such. To buttress his arguments, he contends that
the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in
any other case. He submits that the petitioner is behind bars since 01 year
and 10 months and all the 03 material witnesses i.e. injured witnesses
have been examined. He submits that there is no probability of the
petitioner influencing the injured witnesses as they have already been
examined. He, thus, submits that the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner had fired from his licensed weapon and 03 persons got injured
in the same and thus, intention of the petitioner is evident. He thus,
submits that no case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, is made out.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has equally opposed the
submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the
complicity of the petitioner is duly surfaced. He submits that all the 03
injured have been examined and they have supported the case of the
prosecution. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 21
prosecution investigation, 03 witnesses have been examined. He has
produced on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record,
it is deciphered that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 22.06.2024.
The dispute as alleged is on account of supply of the electricity. All 03
material witnesses already stand examined. As per custody certificate of
the petitioner, he has suffered an incarceration of 01 years, 10 months and
03 days as on 28.04.2026. It further shows that the petitioner has no
criminal antecedents.
7. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after
conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by
both the parties before the trial Court.
8. 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 to the petitioner. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and
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.
29.04.2026 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
ps-I JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
