[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parminder Singh @ Parwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2026
CRM-M-13228-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13228-2026 (O&M)
Parminder Singh @ Parwinder Singh ...Petitioner
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 petitioner.
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-13228-2026 (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 petitioner surfaced in the supplementary
statement of the complainant as well as in the disclosure statements of
co-accused Jasveer Singh and Gurjeevan Singh. The petitioner was arrested on
01.11.2024. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities,
challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with the
co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
2 of 5
CRM-M-13228-2026 (O&M) -3-
falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. He has 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 he was named by
him, which clearly indicates that it was an outcome of afterthoughts. The
petitioner has 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 petitioner and other accused as the
assailants of her husband and herself. The petitioner is 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 petitioner, he is 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 petitioner was
not named in the FIR and his 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
the date of occurrence. The evidentiary value of such disclosure statements is
3 of 5
CRM-M-13228-2026 (O&M) -4-
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 petitioner and other co-accused 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 petitioner is in custody since
01.11.2024 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The
petitioner is stated to have clean antecedents and there is nothing on record to
suggest that he is 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 petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular
bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered
to be released on regular bail, subject to his 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 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) he shall not leave the country under any
circumstance without permission of the learned trial
Court.
(iii) he shall appear before the learned trial Court as
4 of 5
CRM-M-13228-2026 (O&M) -5-
and when directed.
(iv) he shall provide his address where he would be
residing after release and shall not change the same
without informing the concerned IO/SHO.
(v) the petitioner shall upon his release give his
mobile phone number to concerned IO/SHO and shall
keep his mobile phone switched on all times.
7. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the
petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an
application seeking cancellation of bail.
8. 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
