[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Resham Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2026

CRM-M-70348--2025 (O&M)                          1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH


(131)                                                CRM-M-70348-20252025 (O&M)
                                                     Date of decision : 18.03.2026
                                                                              2026

RESHAM SINGH

                                                                     ...
                                                                      .. Petitioner

                                     Versus

STATE OFPUNJAB
        PUNJAB

                                                                    ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:     Mr.Sangram
                Sangram Singh Saron, Advocate and
             Mr. Madhavrao B. Rajwade, Advocate for the petitioner

             Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab

                                        ****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

CRM-10183-2026

1. Prayer in this application is made for granting permission for

placing on record copies of order passed by the Trial Court.

2. The application is allowed subject to just exceptions and the

documents annexed with the application are order ordered ed to be placed on record as

Annexure P-20 20 (Colly.)

3. Application disposed of.

CRM-M-70348--2025

1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under

Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS")

1 of 6

for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. No.154 154 dated 28.10.2023

registered under Sections 324, 506, 148, 149 of IPC (Sections 302 and 34 of IPC

were added later on and Sections 148 and 149 of IPC deleted later on) at Police

Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement

got recorded by the complainant-Manbir complainant Manbir Singh alleging that on the night of

27.10.2023, he, alongwith his brother Gurpreet Singh was returning home and

when they were on the way, they were intercepted by the present petitioner who

was accompanied by his father Gajjan Singh and the co co-accused accused Harman Singh,

Kundan Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Balwant Singh. On seeing the complainant

and his brother, the accused Harman Singh made an exhortat exhortation ion to teach them a

lesson for attempting to demolish a common wall. Thereafter, accused Gurpreet

Singh and Balwant Singh caught hold of Gurpreet Singh (brother of the

complainant). Out of fear to save his life, the complainant fled from the spot

and stood od at some distance. Within his sight, the petitioner and his father Gajjan

Singh took out knives from their pockets and started stabbing his brother by

inflicting blows on his waist and abdomen. Blood started oozing out of the

wounds and his brother had fallen on the ground. Multiple blows were struck by

them on the person of victim. On clamour being raised by the complainant,

some persons of the locality had reached at the spot and then the assailants fled

away. The victim Gurpreet Singh was rushed tto o the Hospital for treatment.

Initially a case under Sections 148, 324 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC

was registered. The victim succumbed to the injuries and died on 29.10.2023.

Offence under er Section 302 of IPC was added subsequently.

2 of 6

3. As per further allegations, the petitioner was arrested on

05.11.2023. He suffered disclosure statement to the fact that his assistant Goru

had caught hold of the victim and he himself had stabbed the victim and no

other person was present with them. On his disclosure, disclosure, Goru was nominated as

accused. During the course of further investigation, the other persons named by

the complainant were found to be innocent and had not been arrested and

challaned. Offences under Sections 148 and 149 of IPC were deleted. Of Offence fence

under Section 34 of IPC was added. The accused Goru was also arrested. The

accused Gajjan Singh was summoned as additional accused during the course of

the trial on partly allowing of an application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

and he is stated ed to have died by now.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been

falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. Only examination

of one witness Manbir Singh and that too partly partly, has been conducted so far,

despite ite the fact that he has been in custody for a period of 02 years and 04

months. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in the near future since as

many as 21 prosecution witnesses are to be examined in this case. The

petitioner is a person of clean antecedents. No useful purpose would be served

by his further detention. His continued custody militates against his

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is,

therefore, stressed that the petition does not dese deserve to be allowed. To fortify

his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the

cases cited as Ram Kishor v. State of UP (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id 2686128;

Mohd. Haroon @ Haroon @ Harun @ Mulla v. State of Haryana, Law Finder

3 of 6

Doc oc Id # 2647427 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC)

533.

5. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that

the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. The injury so

sustained by the victim was sufficient to cause his death. It is, therefore,

stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties at considerable length.

7. The petitioner is alleged to have caused homicidal death of the

victim. The allegations prima facie establish his complicity in the crime.

However, he has been in custody for a period of over 02 years and 04 months by

now. There has not been much progress in the tria triall as only 01 witness that too

partly has been examined so far. 23 prosecution witnesses have been cited in

this case. As such, such the chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are

obviously bleak. In Ram Kishor Versus State of UP (supra), the petitioner ioner who

was accused of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was

in custody for a period of more than 02 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court had

extended benefit of bail to him after taking into consideration that the trial was

likely to take ake reasonable time to conclude. In Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha

(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended benefit of bail to the accused who

had been incarcerated for a long period by observing that prolonged

incarceration militated against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed

under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional

4 of 6

liberty must override the statutory embargo. In Mohd. Haroon @ Haroon @

Harun @ Mulla Vs. State of Haryana (supra) (supra), the accused facing trial for

commission of offence of murder was in custody since long. The trial was

going at a slow pace. He was granted benefit of bail, keeping in view his long

incarceration. Taking into consideration the above discussed circumstanc circumstances, es,

however, without expressing of any opinion on the merit of the case, this Court

is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this

stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be

released ed on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magist Magistrate/Duty rate/Duty Magistrate

concerned and on the following conditions :-

:

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any

manner whatsoever.

(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any

circumstance without permission of the llearned trial Court.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of

hearing.

(iv) The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as

present address before the learned trial Court at the time of

furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without

informing the trial Court.

5 of 6

(v) The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN

Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the

learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case,

any change in in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall

inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and

shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times.

(vi) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the

learned trial Court.

8. In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned

conditions, the respondent-State respondent State shall be at liberty to move an application

seeking cancellation of the bail.