Gurpiar Singh vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 2794 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurpiar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2026

CRM-M-69184--2025 (O&M)                           1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH


                                                      CRM-M-69184-2025
                                                                  2025 (O&M)

GURPIAR SINGH

                                                                          ...
                                                                           .. Petitioner

                                      Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

                                                                         ...Respondent
1           The date when the judgment is reserved                16.03.2026
2           The date when the judgment is pronounced              20.03.2026
3           The date when the judgment is uploaded on the         20.03.2026
            website
4           Whether only operative part of the judgment is        Full
            pronounced or whether the full judgment is
            pronounced
5           The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full       Not applicable
            judgment and reasons thereof.



CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:      Ms. Puja Chopra, Sr. Advocate with
              Ms. Palak Sharma, Advocate
                                Advocate for the petitioner

              Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab

                                        ****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

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

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

for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.27 27 dated 16.02.2024

registered under Sections 307, 323, 379, 148, 149, 120B of IPC (Sections 307,

323 of IPC deleted later on and Section 302 of IPC added later on) on).

1 of 5

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

got recorded by the complainant-Surjit complainant Surjit Kaur on 16.02.2024 alleging therein that

on the night of 10.02.2024 her son had gone to JD Gym, Nabha for exercising,

when the accused Balwinder Singh Dhanoa in connivance with his accomplices

Soni Sainsi, Harry, Sikander, Thuli and some unknown persons assaulted his son

and caused injuries to him with an intent to kill him. They threw him near

Dhariwal Eye Hospital after causing injuries. She alleged that her son was

unconscious and was lying in coma since that day day. The audio recording ording of

accused Balwinder Singh Dhanoa giving instructions to his accomplices to give

beatings to her son and to kill him, had gone viral on social media. By alleging

that she was sure that the above named persons ha had hand in causing injuries to

his son,, she prayed for taking action. On her statement, initially a case under

Sections 323, 307, 379, 120B, 148 and 149 of IPC was registered. Investigation

proceedings were initiated. The victim succumbed to his injuries. Offence

under Section 302 of IPC was was added on 18.02.2024.

3. As per the further allegations, the accus accused ed Balwinder Singh,

Dhanoa and Amanjot Singh @ Thulli were arrested on 27.02.2024. On

interrogation, accused Balwinder Singh Dhanoa suffered disclosure statement

admitting his involvement involvement in the crime. Subsequently Subsequently, the accused Sukhwinder

Singh @ Sikander @ Bachi was arrested. The complainant recorded her

supplementary statement on 21.06.2024 on the basis of which the petitioner and

some other persons were nominated as accused. The pet petitioner itioner was arrested on

13.02.2025. Investigation now stands completed.

2 of 5

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

falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR and has been

nominated as an accused on the basis of the supplementary statement recorded

by the complainant, 04 months after the occurrence. He was not even named by

the co-accused.

accused. He was not present at the time of occurrence. No specific role

has been attributed to him. He is in custody since 115.02.2025.

02.2025. He is not

required for further investigation. The trial would take considerable time to

conclude. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason

for denying benefit of bail. No fruitful purpose is going to be served by

detaining ining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the petition

deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations

against the petitioner are serious in nature. An A audio recording was posted on

the Social media regarding the murder of the victim on the basis of which the

petitioner was nominated as accused. The person who took responsibility for

making post on the Social media claimed that the petitioner alongwith other

assailants was there at the time of commission of subject offence. The

antecedents of the petitioner are not clean, clean as he has been involved in several

other cases. The allegations against him are grave in nature. With these broad

submissions, it is urged that the petition does not dese deserve to be allowed.

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

for the parties at considerable length.

3 of 5

7. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. He was nominated as an

accused on the basis of the supplementary statement of the complainant as

recorded 04 months after the occurrence. Annexure P3 is copy of translated

version of the challan report as filed in this case and on a perusal of the same it

is revealed that on 21.06.2024, the complainant had recorded statement that

some audio was posted on Social media by the accused regarding the murder of

her son and named the petitioner as one of the assailants alongwith 02 mor moree

persons namely Manjit Kaur @ Kali and Karo as assailants to her son.

Admittedly, the above said Manjit Kaur and Karo have been found to be

innocent. In the status report, it is mentioned that the petitioner was nominated

due to the fact that a person who who took responsibility of the murder of the victim

by making a post on Social media, media had also claimed that the petitioner was

alongwith them. The contents of the said post, have been mentioned in the

status report. Learned State counsel had also not been able to say as to who had

uploaded some audio/video on Social media and what were the contents of the

same. The supplementary statement of the petitioner also does not appear to be

made on the basis of any eye-witnessed eye witnessed account account. As such it is a debatablee

question as to whether the petitioner was actively involved in the incident or

not? He is in custody since 15.02.2025. The trial will obviously take time to

conclude as only 02 out of 29 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

8. Taking into into consideration the above discussed facts but without

meaning to make any comment on the merit of the case, this Court is of the

considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the

petitioner in custody anymore and a case is made out for grant of bail to the

4 of 5

petitioner, at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is

ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety

bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief JJudicial udicial

Magistrate/Duty rate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

concerned

9. 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.

10. Since the main petition has been allowed allowed, pending application, if

any, is rendered infructuous.

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 20.03.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No

5 of 5