[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandan@Chandu And Another vs State Of Punjab on 10 March, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-37124-
37124-2024 and CRM-
CRM-M-43204-
43204-2025
104 (2 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-
CRM-M-37124-
37124-2024
Chandan alias Chandu and another
....Petitionerss
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
2. CRM-
CRM-M-43204-
43204-2025
2025
Vishal Gill alias Aaloo
....Petitioner
.Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of decision: March 10,
10, 2026
Date of Uploading: March 11,
11, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Ms. Renu Arora, Advocate for the petitioner
petitioners
(in CRM-M-37124-2024)
(presence
presence marked through video
video--conferencing).
conferencing
Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CRM-M-43204-2025)
(presence
presence marked through video
video--conferencing).
conferencing
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.
Mr. Ivan Singh Khosa, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1 of 11
CRM-
CRM-M-37124-
37124-2024 and CRM-
CRM-M-43204-
43204-2025
By way of the present common judgment, this Court proceeds
to decide aforesaid two petitions in hand, since there is commonality and
congruity of legal issues therein, as conceded by the learned rival counsel.
For the cause of convenience, the facts are drawn out from
CRM-
CRM-M-37124-2024 titled as Chandan alias Chandu and another versus
37124-2024
State of Punjab.
Punjab
2. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.') seeking grant of regular bail
to the petitioners, in case bearing FIR No.62 dated 01.04.2024, registered
under Sections 307, 324, 326, 506, 120-B, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') (Sections 25/ 54/ 59 of the Arms Act added
later on), at Police Station Sadar, District Jalandhar.
3. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioners is that
complainant, alleged that his son (Rajdeep Singh) is addicted to drugs and a
few days prior to the incident, Anthony alias Kandi and his wife Gama had
threatened him, stating that since he had not paid the money for the drugs
allegedly purchased from them, they would eliminate him. The complainant
also stated that earlier his son had disputes with Anthony alias Kandi,
Munish alias Manni, Vishal Gill alias Aaloo (petitioner herein), Chandan
alias Chandu (petitioner herein), and Danial alias Danny. The complainant
alleged that due to the said enmity, the above-mentioned persons, in
furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, attacked his son with the intention to
2 of 11
CRM-
CRM-M-37124-
37124-2024 and CRM-
CRM-M-43204-
43204-2025
commit his murder and, after inflicting injuries, threw him away believing
that he had died. However, by the grace of the Almighty, his son survived.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have iterated that a bare
perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioners
are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has
further iterated that the petitioners have been falsely implicated based on
speculations of the complainant. Learned counsel has argued that no specific
injury or weapon has been attributed to the petitioners.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-37124-2024),
apart from aforesaid submissions, has argued that the petitioners were
nominated by the police solely on the speculations and assumptions of the
complainant and that too two days after the incident in question, without
there being any CCTV footage or any eye witness and further without
recording the statement of injured/ victim.
4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-43204-2025), in
addition to aforesaid submissions, has iterated that there is an unexplained
delay of 01 day in lodging the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued
that the case in hand is not of an eye-witness account and the prosecution
case is based only on hearsay evidence. Learned counsel has argued that no
specific role or injury has been attributed to the petitioner.
4.3. Learned counsel have also argued that co-accused of the
petitioners, namely, Daniel @ Daini has been accorded concession of bail,
vide order dated 31.07.2025 passed in CRM-
CRM-M-39879-
39879-2025.
3 of 11
CRM-
CRM-M-37124-
37124-2024 and CRM-
CRM-M-43204-
43204-2025
4.4. Learned counsel have argued that nothing is to be recovered
from the petitioners. Learned counsel have further stated that after
completion of investigation, the challan stands presented on 11.06.2024, and
out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, 04 have been examined till date.
Learned counsel have further argued that the petitioners have suffered
incarceration for more than 02 years, and, thus, no useful purpose would be
served by keeping them behind bars further. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel, while raising submissions in
tandem with status report by way of an affidavit dated 18.09.2024 and
further, supplementary status report by way of an affidavit dated 17.12.2024,
which are already on record, has opposed the grant of regular bail to the
petitioners by arguing that there are grave/serious allegations against the
petitioners. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioners along with
co-accused had assaulted Rajdeep Singh alias Lally (son of the complainant)
with their respective weapons by striking on his head, and after commission
of offence, they fled on their motorcycles along with their respective
weapons.
5.1. Further, learned State counsel has submitted that after grant of
bail to the co-accused, namely Daniel @ Daini, examination-in-chief of the
injured was recorded on 17.01.2026 and his cross-examination was done on
17.02.2026. Learned State counsel has argued that the injured has stood by
his testimony and the prosecution version.
4 of 11
CRM-
CRM-M-37124-
37124-2024 and CRM-
CRM-M-43204-
43204-2025
5.2. Learned State counsel has argued that, in case, the petitioners
are granted concession of regular bail, there is all likelihood that they may
abscond from the process of justice as also interfere with the prosecution
evidence/witnesses. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the
petitions in hand is entreated for.
5.3. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of
petitions in hand by arguing that there are direct/ serious allegations against
the petitioners. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioners and their co-
accused had given serious head injuries to the injured, and, hence, they
ought not to be granted the concession of regular bail. Learned counsel has
argued that, in case, the concession of regular bail is afforded to the
petitioners, there is all likelihood that they may abscond from the process of
justice and also interfere/intimidate the prosecution witnesses/ evidence. On
the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petitions in hand is
entreated for.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have
perused the paper-book.
7. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention here that the bail
plea of the petitioner - Vishal Gill alias Aaloo is the second attempt to
secure regular bail. A perusal of the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the
co-ordinate Bench shows that CRM-M-37124-2024 stands withdrawn qua
petitioner - Vishal Gill @ Aaloo.
5 of 11
CRM-
CRM-M-37124-
37124-2024 and CRM-
CRM-M-43204-
43204-2025
8. As per prosecution case, it is borne out that the complainant,
namely, Sukhwinder Singh, (father of the injured Rajdeep Singh), has
clearly stated that the injured was earlier threatened by one Anthony alias
Kandi and his wife Gama for not paying the money allegedly due for
narcotic substances purchased by him. They had also threatened to eliminate
him. It has been specifically alleged that thereafter, Anthony alias Kandi,
Munish alias Manni, Vishal Gill alias Aaloo (petitioner herein), Chandan
alias Chandu (petitioner herein) and Danial alias Danny, in furtherance of a
pre-planned criminal conspiracy, formed an unlawful assembly and attacked
the injured Rajdeep Singh with deadly weapons with the clear intention to
commit his murder. After inflicting brutal injuries, the accused persons left
the injured at the spot presuming him to be dead.
8.1. A perusal of the Medico-Legal Report dated 16.10.2024
appended with the supplementary status report by way of an affidavit dated
17.12.2024 reveals the following injuries to the injured:
Sr. Injuries Marked Injury
No. Number
1 Incised wound measure approx 6cmx2cm OVER THE LEFT Yes 1
FRONTAL REGION OF SKULL BONE DEEP FRESH
BLEEDING PRESENT FROM THE WOUND ADVISE
NEUROSURGERY OPINION CT SCAN HEAD
2 INCISED WOUND MEASURE APPROX 5 CMX3CM ON LEFT Yes 2
TEMPORAL REGION OF SKULL JUST ABOVE THE LEFT
PINNA BONE DEEP FRESH BLEEDING PRESENT FROM THE
WOUND
ADVISE CT SCAN HEAD NEUROSURGERY OPINION
3 INCISED WOUND MEASURE APPROX 7CMX3CM ON LEFT Yes 3
PARIETAL REGION OF SKULL JUST ABOVE THE LEFT
PINNA BONE DEEP FRESH BLEEDING PRESENT FROM THE
WOUND
ADVISE CT SCAN HEAD NEUROSURGERY OPINION
4 INCISED WOUND MEASURE APPROX 5CM ONER THE Yes 4
UPPER PINNA OF LEFT EAR WHICH WAS ONLY ATTACED
TO SKULL AT ONE SIDE FRESH BLEEDING PRESENT FROM
THE WOUND
6 of 11
CRM-
CRM-M-37124-
37124-2024 and CRM-
CRM-M-43204-
43204-2025
Nature of Injuries (Simple, Grievous,
Grievous, Dangerous or pending for observation)
1, 2, 3, OBSERVATION 4 GRIEVOUS
Probable Duration of Injury
2HRS
Kind of Weapon Used (Sharp, Blunt, Firearm, Fire, Position etc.)
SHARP FOR ALL
8.2. Aforesaid medical record clearly establishes the gravity of the
offence, as the injured sustained multiple injuries on his head. Due to the
said brutal assault, the condition of the injured became critical and he
remained admitted in the hospital for nearly one month. The manner in
which the accused persons, including the present petitioners, jointly
participated in the occurrence and inflicted grievous and life-threatening
injuries clearly shows their common object and active role in the
commission of the offence.
8.3. Further, it has been stated by the State that after the grant of bail
to the co-accused, namely Daniel @ Daini, the examination-in-chief of the
injured witness was recorded on 17.01.2026, and his cross-examination was
conducted on 17.02.2026. During the course of his testimony, the injured
witness fully supported the prosecution case and remained consistent with
the version put forth in the FIR. Despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing
material could be elicited to discredit his testimony, and he firmly stood by
his earlier statement and the prosecution version.
9. The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the
court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and
principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and
the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court must
7 of 11
CRM-
CRM-M-37124-
37124-2024 and CRM-
CRM-M-43204-
43204-2025
evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating the
accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and the severity of the
likely sentence upon conviction. The Court must also assess the likelihood
of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability
of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension of the
accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Additionally, the
character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing and overall
conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the Court must
weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the administration of justice
or thwarting its due course. A profitable reference in this regard is made to
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State through
C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, relevant
whereof reads as under:
"14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an
application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature
and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on
bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of
course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati
v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme
179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the
Court 179
evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is
of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the
witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to
subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We
may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of
bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR
(Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in regard to grant or
refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise
its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though
at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and
elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken,
8 of 11
CRM-
CRM-M-37124-
37124-2024 and CRM-
CRM-M-43204-
43204-2025
there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is
charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such
reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for
the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the
following factors also before granting bail; they are:
a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case
of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant.
c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(see Ram GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal)
250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR
(Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338."
This Court also in specific terms held that :
"the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non
for granting bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned
order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration
already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding
in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in
spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable
with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our
opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of
incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the
accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to
be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period
of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail
when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations
of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was
on bail."
10. The plea regarding false implication of the petitioners shall be
ratiocinated upon during trial. As per prosecution case, total 16 prosecution
witnesses have been cited and out of which, 04 are stated to have been
examined, including the injured duly supporting the prosecution version.
11. The allegations leveled against the petitioners are specific,
grave and well defined, which prima facie indicate their active participation
in the commission of the offence. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
very magnitude, brutality and seriousness of the crime clearly disentitle the
9 of 11
CRM-
CRM-M-37124-
37124-2024 and CRM-
CRM-M-43204-
43204-2025
petitioners to the discretionary relief of bail. In the considered opinion of this
Court, at this stage, no accentuating circumstances have been made which
may, prima facie, constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail
to the petitioners, especially in light of the gravity of the allegations, nature
of assault/ injuries and the evidence on record. It also deserves emphasis that
offences of this nature strike at the very root of public order rule of law and
societal conscience. Grant of bail in such cases may send a wrong signal to
society and undermine public confidence in the administration of criminal
justice. Furthermore, there exists a real and tangible apprehension that if
enlarged on bail, the petitioners may abscond to evade trial or attempt to
influence, threaten, or intimidate prosecution witnesses especially when
several material witnesses are yet to be examined and the prosecution
evidence is still to unfold.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the nature
and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioners,
and the serious injuries sustained by the victim on vital parts of his body,
this Court finds no ground to extend the concession of regular bail to the
petitioners. The medical evidence on record clearly reflects that the injured
suffered multiple incised wounds on the head caused by sharp-edged
weapons, which rendered his condition critical and required prolonged
hospitalization. Furthermore, the injured witness has fully supported the
prosecution case, and even after thorough cross-examination, nothing has
emerged to discredit his testimony. At this stage, when the prosecution
10 of 11
CRM-
CRM-M-37124-
37124-2024 and CRM-
CRM-M-43204-
43204-2025
evidence, particularly that of the injured witness, prima facie substantiates
the allegations against the petitioners, granting regular bail may adversely
affect the fair course of the trial. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of regular bail.
Accordingly, the petitions are, thus, devoid of merits and are hereby
dismissed.
dismissed
13. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove
shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency
as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without
being influenced with this order.
14. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
March 10,
10, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
11 of 11
