[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh Mann And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 May, 2026
CRM-M-70450-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
105 CRM-M-70450-2025 (O&M)
Gurcharan Singh Mann & another ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 19.05.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 22.05.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 22.05.2026
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: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Nitika Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the complainant.
...
Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).
1. The petitioners have jointly filed this petition for grant of
regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.100, dated 16.12.2024,
registered under Sections 103(1), 109, 118(1), 190 and 238 of the BNS
and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Bhadaur,
District Barnala.
CRM-M-70450-2025 (O&M) -2-
2. As per the allegations, on the evening of 15.12.2024, the
complainant - Amarjit Singh @ Ambu along with his brother Gurmail
Singh and son Sukhjit Singh was present in his house and was having
conversation with them when suddenly, petitioner No.1 - Gurcharan
Singh Mann armed with a rifle accompanied by petitioner No.2 - Ranjit
Singh @ Mithu, Jasvir Singh, Baljit Singh, Nirpal Singh, Narain Singh,
Satwinder Singh @ Falla and Lakhvir Singh came there. They were
armed with weapons and opened assault upon them. Accused Lakhvir
Singh struck blows with a sword on Sukhjit Singh i.e. son of the
complainant and accused Satwinder Singh struck blows with gandasa on
his person. The complainant rushed for rescue of his son but had
sustained injuries at the hands of Baljit Singh, Nirpal Singh and Sukhman
Singh. Accused Jasvir Singh while proclaiming that the complainant and
his family should not be spared, struck blow with a barcha in the
abdomen of Sukhjit Singh. Accused Narain Singh struck a blow with
ghop on the chest of the complainant. They sustained injuries and raised
clamour. Petitioner No.1 fired shots with the rifle which he was having in
his hands. Thereafter, accused Kulwinder Singh fired shots with his
revolver and then the assailants, while hurling abuses to the complainant,
left the spot. The cause of grudge was that the petitioner No.1, Gurcharan
Singh had contested Panchayat elections against Sukhjit Singh and had
lost the same.
3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. The victim Sukhjit Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained by
CRM-M-70450-2025 (O&M) -3-
him. Post mortem examination of his dead body was conducted. The
petitioners and some co-accused were arrested on 18.12.2024.
Subsequently, some other accused were also arrested. The rifle used in
the occurrence was found to be licensed weapon of petitioner No.2 Ranjit
Singh @ Mithu. Investigation now stands completed.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they
have been falsely implicated in this case. They are in custody since long.
There are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near future as only 01
out of 59 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. No specific
injury has been attributed to either of them. As per the allegations,
petitioner No.2 fired shots in the air. Nine of the persons named as
accused have been found to be innocent. The prosecution version is full
of discrepancies since in his supplementary statement, the complainant
had changed the location of place of occurrence. No useful purpose
would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody anymore. It is,
therefore, argued that they deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel
for the complainant has vehemently argued that taking into consideration
the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioners, they do
not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
7. The petitioners are alleged to have formed membership of an
unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common
CRM-M-70450-2025 (O&M) -4-
object thereof, injuries were inflicted on the members of the complainant
party, including victim Sukhjit Singh, who had succumbed to the same.
Several other persons were injured in this incident. Petitioner No.1 was
armed with a gandasa at the relevant time, whereas petitioner No.2 was
armed with a rifle and had also fired shots with this weapon. They might
not have been attributed any specific injury, however, they have been
linked to the acts attributed with the aid of Section 190 of BNS, 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. The petitioners along with co-accused stand accused of a
heinous crime punishable with capital punishment or life imprisonment. The
allegations prima facie show their active complicity in the occurrence while
having knowledge that such offences are likely to be committed in
prosecution of common object. At this stage, it cannot be presumed that they
were innocent only because no specific overt act has been attributed to them.
While length of incarceration is a factor that weighs with the Court in
considering bail, it cannot overshadow the gravity of the accusations of
murder under Section 103 of BNS. 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
CRM-M-70450-2025 (O&M) -5-
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 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. It is also well settled proposition of law that mere prolonged period of
custody is not sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail, when the
offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the
observations made in Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC
(SC), Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1
SCC, 242 and State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR
(Criminal) 280(SC).
9. In the light of the foregoing legal principles and other
circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to
allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
10. It is clarified that any observation made in this order is only for
deciding this petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and
also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits.
11. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA)
22.05.2026 JUDGE
harjeet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
