Rahul Kumar @ Rahul vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 2874 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2026

CRM-M-69487-2025                                                                   -1-




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                CRM-M-69487-2025

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul
                                                                             ...Petitioner
                                              Versus
State of Punjab
                                                                          ...Respondent

Sr. No.                              Particulars                               Details
1         The date when the judgment is reserved                            20.03.2026
2         The date when the judgment is pronounced                          24.03.2026
3         The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website             24.03.2026
          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. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

                Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

                        ***

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the

petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 44 dated

31.05.2025 registered under Sections 103, 191(3), 190 and 3(5) of Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959

(Sections 61(2), 49, 115(2) and 249 of BNS added and Section 3(5) deleted

1 of 6

later on) at Police Station Verka, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2. The FIR was registered on the basis of the basis of complaint

made by the complainant Sukhdev Singh @ Raju on 31.05.2025, alleging

therein that on the same morning, Kaka and his sister Rajveer Kaur made a

call to Shamsher Singh @ Shera and his nephew Manpreet Singh alias Bobby,

asking them to come near Nanda Hospital. Both of them went there and were

encircled by accused Kaka, his sister Rajveer Kaur, and 10-12 unknown

persons. All of them opened an attack upon Manpreet Singh and Shamsher

Singh and caused injuries to them on their heads with the butts of pistols which

they were carrying. The victims had fallen down and raised clamour, on

hearing which, some persons reached at the spot and then the assailants fled

away. The injured were rushed to the hospital. The complainant further

alleged that when his nephew Manpreet Singh reached CHC Hospital, he

received a call and was asked to come to Makhan Dhaba for a compromise.

His nephew apprised him about this fact. On hearing so, the complainant,

along with his brother Kuldeep and friend Randhir Singh reached at the

informed place, where accused Kaka and his father Mangal Singh were found

present along with some unknown persons. A scuffle took place between

them, and Kaka and his accomplices had fired shots at him, from which he

had a narrow escape. However, four shots were fired at his brother Kuldeep

Singh, who succumbed to the firearm injuries.

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were

2 of 6

initiated. Post-mortem examination of the dead body of the victim was

conducted. The accused Mangal Singh @ Kala was arrested on 31.05.2025.

On his disclosure statement, the petitioner was nominated as an accused and

was arrested on the same day. He too suffered disclosure statement on the

basis of which one Amarjit Singh @ China was nominated as an additional

accused. Some other accused were subsequently nominated. Investigation

now stands completed.

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

been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of

the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He

was not named in the FIR. No specific role, injury, or any overt act has been

attributed to him. He is not alleged to have been carrying any weapon at the

time of occurrence. His test identification parade has not been conducted. His

antecedents are clean. Trial is likely to take time to conclude as not even a

single witness has been examined so far. No useful purpose would be served

by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves

to be released on bail.

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

by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused, had

voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant and

his brother. The injury sustained by the brother of the complainant resulted in

his homicidal death. The trial has commenced and there is nothing to show

3 of 6

that there would be any undue delay in conclusion thereof. It is, therefore,

argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at

considerable length.

7. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an

unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object

thereof, is alleged to have caused homicidal death of the victim Kuldeep

Singh. The disclosure statement of the co-accused though subject to

evidentiary scrutiny at trial cannot be brushed aside at this stage when it forms

part of chain of circumstances pointing out towards the involvement of the

petitioner in the crime. The petitioner has been linked to the acts attributed

with the aid of Section 149 IPC, which has the following ingredients:-

1. There must be an unlawful assembly;

2. Commission of an offence may be by any member

of the unlawful assembly; and

3. Such offence must have been committed in

prosecution of the common object of the assembly,

or must be such as the members of the assembly

knew to be likely to be committed.

8. From a perusal of the above ingredients, it is apparent that even

mere presence in the unlawful assembly but with an active mind to achieve

the common object, makes a person vicariously liable for the acts of the

unlawful assembly. Under Section 149 of IPC, the liability of the other

4 of 6

members, for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence

rests upon the fact whether the other members knew beforehand that the

offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the

common object or not. Such knowledge can reasonably be collected from the

nature of the assembly, the weapon used, the behaviour of the participants at

or before the scene of action.

9. In the instant case, the petitioner along with the co-accused by

forming membership of an unlawful assembly is alleged to have opened an

attack upon the victim. The allegations prima facie show his clear

involvement/participation in the occurrence while having knowledge that the

such offences were likely to be committed in prosecution of common object.

The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he along with

co-accused stands accused of a heinous crime punishable with capital

punishment or life imprisonment. While length of incarceration is a factor that

weighs with the Court in considering bail, it cannot overshadow the

seriousness of the accusation of murder under Section 302 IPC. The material

witnesses are yet to be examined. It is well-settled proposition of law that

grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific

facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive

parameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors

such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail

a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen.

That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or

5 of 6

threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of

prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of

genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. Taking

into consideration the nature of the allegations as levelled against the

petitioner, the part attributed to him, his antecedents and the quantum of

sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and

circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the

petition does not deserve to be allowed. Hence, the same is dismissed.

10. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove

shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case

and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.

11. Since the main petition has already been decided, pending

application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

[MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 24th March, 2026 Parveen Sharma

1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No

2. Whether reportable : Yes / No

6 of 6