[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harmal Singh Alias Harman Alias Kaka ... vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2026
CRM-M-69449-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-69449-2025 (O&M)
Harmal Singh @ Harman @ Kaka Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 17.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 20.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 20.03.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. P. K. S. Phoolka, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in
FIR No. 94 dated 02.07.2024, registered under Sections 103, 109, 118, 118(1),
118(2), 115(2), 117(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2) of BNS at Police Station Talwandi
Sabo, District Bathinda.
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement of
complainant Jagroop Singh on the allegations that on the night of 01.07.2024,
after dinner, all family members were sleeping in the courtyard in front of their
1 of 5
CRM-M-69449-2025 (O&M) -2-
respective rooms. His brother Shamsher Singh @ Sheru was sleeping
separately with his wife Harpreet Kaur and their children, with a cooler placed
in front of their room. At about 12:00/12:30 midnight, on hearing the cries of
Harpreet Kaur, the complainant and his parents rushed to the spot. In the light
of an electric bulb, the complainant saw that Gurjeevan Singh @ Jeevan,
Jasveer Singh @ Gaggu, Resham Singh and Babbu Singh, armed with
weapons, along with 5-6 unknown persons armed with sticks, were assaulting
Shamsher Singh and Harpreet Kaur. When the complainant and his parents
intervened, they were also attacked. The assailants fled from the spot with their
weapons after noticing that the victims had sustained serious injuries. The
injured were first taken to Civil Hospital, Talwandi Sabo, then referred to Civil
Hospital, Bathinda, and subsequently to AIIMS Bathinda, where Shamsher
Singh succumbed to his injuries. The motive alleged was that Harpreet Kaur
had solemnized a second marriage with Shamsher Singh about 4-5 years
earlier, which had caused resentment among Gurjeevan Singh and others.
3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. Post-mortem examination of the dead body of the victim and inquest
proceedings were conducted. During the course of investigation, on
22.09.2024, the name of the present petitioners surfaced in the supplementary
statement of the complainant as well as during the interrogation of co-accused
Jasveer Singh and Gurjeevan Singh. The petitioners were arrested on
02.11.2024 and 01.11.2024, respectively. After completion of necessary
investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and
presently, the petitioners along with the co-accused are facing trial for
commission of aforementioned offences.
2 of 5
CRM-M-69449-2025 (O&M) -3-
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have
been falsely implicated in this case. They were not named in the FIR. They
have been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statements of
the abovenamed co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in
evidence. The supplementary statement of the complainant was got recorded
after a period of about two months of the incident, in which they were named
by him, which clearly indicates that it was an outcome of afterthoughts. The
petitioners have clean antecedents. Investigation has since been completed and
challan has been presented. During the course of trial, witness Harpreet Kaur,
who is wife of the deceased victim, had stepped into witness box as PW-1 and
had turned hostile as she did not identify the petitioners as the assailants of her
husband and herself. The petitioners are in custody since long. Conclusion of
trial would take considerable time. No useful purpose would be served by
keeping them in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition
deserves to be allowed and the petitioners deserve to be released on regular
bail.
5. Reply has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State
counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled
against the petitioners, they are not entitled to get benefit of bail. It is, thus,
argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
7. A perusal of the record reveals that admittedly, the petitioners
were not named in the FIR and their involvement surfaced subsequently, firstly
in the disclosure statements of co-accused and thereafter in the supplementary
statement of the complainant recorded after a delay of about two months from
3 of 5
CRM-M-69449-2025 (O&M) -4-
the date of occurrence. The evidentiary value of such disclosure statements is
limited and cannot, by itself, be made the sole basis to deny the concession of
bail at this stage. It is further significant to note that wife of the deceased, who
was a star prosecution witness and was also an eyewitness to the occurrence,
namely Harpreet Kaur (PW-1), has not supported the prosecution case qua the
present petitioners and has failed to identify them as assailants while stepping
into the witness box. She has even denied to making any statement before the
police. This development materially affects the prosecution case, at least prima
facie, insofar as the role attributed to the petitioners is concerned. The
investigation in the present case stands completed and challan has already been
presented. The petitioners are in custody since 01/02.11.2024 and the trial is
likely to take considerable time to conclude. The petitioners are stated to have
clean antecedents and there is nothing on record to suggest that they are likely
to abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence if released on bail. Keeping in
view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
petitioners have made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the
present petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on
regular bail, subject to their furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds by two
sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and on
the following conditions:-
(i) the petitioners 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) they shall not leave the country under any
circumstance without permission of the learned trial
Court.
4 of 5
CRM-M-69449-2025 (O&M) -5-
(iii) they shall appear before the learned trial Court as
and when directed.
(iv) they shall provide their address where they would
be residing after release and shall not change the same
without informing the concerned IO/SHO.
(v) they shall upon their release give their mobile
phone numbers to concerned IO/SHO and shall keep
their mobile phone switched on all times.
8. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the
petitioners, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an
application seeking cancellation of bail.
9. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for
the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing
on the merits of the case.
20.03.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
