[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Kumar Alias Cheecha vs State Of Punjab And Another on 29 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207
CRA-S-3798-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.01.2026
KRISHAN KUMAR ALIAS CHEECHA ......Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present :- Mr. Jagdeep Chahal, Advocate
(Through Video Conferencing) with
Mr. Harpreet Pal Singh Bunger, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
Dr. (Ms.) Savi Nagpal, Asst. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. Anmol Puri, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
CRM-49298-2025
Prayer in the application is for condonation of delay of 37 days
in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and delay of 37 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
1 of 6
CRA-S-3798-2025 (O&M) -2-
CRA-S-3798-2025
1. The instant appeal has been filed for the grant of regular bail in
case bearing FIR No. 50 dated 06.05.2020, registered under Section(s) 302,
307, 323, 326, 324, 341, 188, 506, 148, 149 and 188 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Section 51 and 54 of Disaster Management Act and Section
3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 at Police Station Passiana, District Patiala.
2. The FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement
of Yadwinder Singh son of Gurmeet Singh resident of Village Passiana,
District Patiala which reads as under:-
"Statement that I am resident of the above noted address and
doing private service. We are three brothers, our elder brother
Bhupinder Singh aged 32 years who is present Sarpanch of
Village Pasyana and I am younger to him and Balwinder Singh
is the younger to me. Yesterday, i.e.05.05.2020 I along with my
Uncle's son Balwinder Singh son of S. Karnail Singh my
brother Bhupinder Singh were returning towards Village
Pasyana in his Car bearing registration No PB-13-AJ-1147
Mark Swift from Patiala after purchasing the medicine and
masks. The said Car was being driven by S. Bhupinder Singh.
At about 8:30 PM when we reached under the bridge/flyover on
Samana-Patiala Road our car was at very slow speed. At that
time one Swift Car of silver colour came from the other side and
the car struck into our Car due to which our Car suddenly got
stopped and through the help of Car's light I saw that Krishan
Kumar @ Chicha son of Khila Ram, Varinder Singh son of
Balvir Singh, Manjit Singh @ Bittu son of Dayal Ram, Gurmeet
Singh son of Ajmer Singh, Kulwinder Singh son of Karnail
Singh residents of Village Pasyana, came out of the said Car
armed with Kirpans and Knifes (Chhura). All of them attacked
us and had even broken the window panes or our Car and
2 of 6
CRA-S-3798-2025 (O&M) -3-
dragged Bhupinder Singh out from the Car. Krishan Kumar and
Manjit Singh stabbed their Kirpans in the abdomen of
Bhupinder Singh. The other persons also caused injuries to
Bhupinder Singh with their kirpans and daggers In the
meantime two more vehicles came to the spot out of which
Lakhi son, of Prithi Ram, Mandeep Singh, Sandeep Singh son of
Jagdish Ram, Meshi son of Jaisi Ram Gurmeet Singh son of
Ajmer Singh, Nindi son of Karnail Singh, Jagtar Singh son of
Kesar Singh resident of Pasyana, Preet Saini resident of
Village Korjiwala , Harinder Mahal resident of Village
Korjiwala and Rupi resident of Village Dhablan armed with
Kirpans dangs and other deadly weapons came out of the cars
to whom I identified under the lights of the vehicles
accompanied with some other persons whose name is not
known but I can identify them if they appear before me who also
assaulted my brother Bhupinder Singh, who was lying on the
ground. When I and Balwinder Singh tried to save Bhupinder
Singh, they also caused injuries upon us with the help of
Kirpaan and Daang (rod) Varinder Singh with an intention to
kill straight way attacked towards my head, against which I
managed to rescue myself after and raised my right hand
against the said attack which caused injury on my right hand
and also inflicted injuries on Balwinder Singh with kirpans and
lathies. Upon raising by us saying Maar ditta. Maar ditta, the
said persons left the spot along with their weapons in their cars
assuming that Bhupinder Singh had died at the spot. Then my
Uncle Karnail Singh son of Bachna Ram, Gurmeet Singh son of
Lachmman Singh arranged the vehicle and got us shiited to
Rajindra Hospital, Patiala from where upon seeing the serious
condition, the doctor had further referred my brother
Bhupinder Singh to P.G.I. Chandigarh from where I found out
that my brother died due to his injuries. The reason behind this
controversy was anger/ill will against my brother was present
Sarpanch of the Village got elected in the election with the help
of the above named Krishan Kumar @ Chicha party and they
3 of 6
CRA-S-3798-2025 (O&M) -4-
were putting pressure that grant of the Village released by the
Government be utilized as per their wish and whim but
Bhupinder Singh didn't that and straightway denied for the
same due to which made them angry so a few days ago they had
a quarrel and injuries were sustained by both the sides for
which a case also registered earlier at Police Station Pasyana.
Out of resentment, they consulted and expose/ attacked us with
and intention to kill and had killed my brother Bhupinder Singh.
I got my statement recorded in the presence of Balwinder Singh
which has been written, the same has been read over to me,
heard and is correct."
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends
that the appellant is in custody since year 2020 and has already undergone an
actual custody of more than five years and only 3 out of total 24 witnesses
cited by the prosecution have been examined so far.
4. Learned State Counsel on the other hand contends that the
appellant has criminal antecedents and is in involved in multiple offences.
She contends that on account of additional accused having been summoned,
the evidence is to commence again and that as appearance of the other
accused is still pending, hence, the trial has not made any further progress.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2-
complainant contends that the appellant has still not desisted from
threatening the complainant party of dire consequences in the event of
deposing against him in the Court of law. He thus opposes the prayer on the
ground that the grant of bail to the appellant is likely to cause serious danger
to the complainant's life and liberties.
4 of 6
CRA-S-3798-2025 (O&M) -5-
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and have gone through the documents appended alongwith
the present appeal.
7. Without going into the merits of the respective allegations and
role attributed to the parties, I find that the appellant has already undergone
an actual custody of more than five years in the present case and that the
evidence is to commence for summoning of accused. Even prior thereto,
only 03 witnesses out of the total 24 witnesses cited by the prosecution have
been examined and delay in prosecution should not be the reason for a
prolonged and continued detention of a person.
8. Hence, I deem it appropriate to allow the present appeal at this
stage solely on account of the prolonged custody already undergone by the
appellant. The bail is, however, subject to the condition that he shall not
extend any threat to the witnesses/complainants or tamper with the
investigation or try to influence the outcome. In the event of any such
complaint(s) being received and the allegations being found correct, on
inquiry/investigation, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be liable to be
cancelled on an appropriate application moved by the prosecution/party
aggrieved.
9. The instant appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail
bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
5 of 6
CRA-S-3798-2025 (O&M) -6-
10. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case
on the basis of available material.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JANUARY 29, 2026 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
