[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Kumar Alias Landi vs State Of Punjab on 22 May, 2026
216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.8085 of 2026
Date of decision: 22.05.2026
Ajay Kumar alias Landi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present :- Mr. Arpan Sabharwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)
1. This is a second regular bail petition under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of regular bail to
the petitioner in FIR No.87 dated 16.08.2023, initially registered under
Sections 323, 307, 379-B IPC (with Section 302 IPC added later on), at
Police Station Sadar Nakodar, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar, Punjab.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on
15.08.2023 at about 7:00 PM, the complainant along with his wife
Kulwinder Kaur was travelling on a motorcycle when, near village
Sarakpur, two unknown persons came on another motorcycle from behind.
The pillion rider inflicted a blow on the head of the complainant's wife,
causing her to fall, and thereafter, one assailant snatched her ear rings while
authenticity of this order/judgment
the other assaulted the complainant. Both the assailants fled from the spot.
On the basis of the statement, FIR was initially registered under Sections
323, 307 and 379-B IPC. Subsequently, on 19.08.2023, the injured
Kulwinder Kaur succumbed to her injuries, whereupon Section 302 IPC
was added.
3. During investigation, on the basis of a supplementary
statement made by the complainant, the present petitioner Ajay Kumar @
Landi along with co-accused Sunil Kumar was nominated as an accused.
Both the accused were arrested on 19.08.2023, and the motorcycle used in
the occurrence as well as the snatched ear rings were recovered.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in the present case and was not named in the initial FIR,
but has been nominated subsequently on the basis of a supplementary
statement recorded after a delay of four days, without disclosing the source
of such information. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in
custody since 19.08.2023 and the investigation in the case stands
completed, with the challan already presented and charges framed. Learned
counsel further submits that as per the prosecution case itself, the fatal
injury, i.e the datar blow on the head of the deceased has been specifically
attributed to the co-accused Sunil Kumar, who was the pillion rider,
whereas the present petitioner is alleged to have merely driven the
motorcycle, and the allegation of assault upon the complainant is general
and omnibus in nature. It is thus argued that in the absence of any material
to establish common intention, the offences under Sections 307/302 IPC
authenticity of this order/judgment
are not made out against the petitioner. It is further contended that even
otherwise, the only offence that could be said to be attracted against the
petitioner is under Section 379-B IPC, and considering that the petitioner
has already undergone incarceration for over two years and nine months,
continued detention would serve no useful purpose. It is also argued that
the alleged confessional statement made by the petitioner during police
custody is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel further submits that
no Test Identification Parade was conducted to establish the identity of the
petitioner, and no independent witness was joined at the time of the alleged
recovery, thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution version. It is
also pointed out that the only independent witness cited by the prosecution,
namely Baljit Singh (PW-3), has turned hostile, thereby weakening the case
of the prosecution. It is further contended that the petitioner has clean
antecedents, is not involved in any other criminal case, and the trial is
likely to take considerable time to conclude. The petitioner undertakes to
abide by all conditions imposed by the Court, to join the proceedings as
and when required, and not to tamper with the prosecution evidence or
influence any witness. It is also submitted that nothing remains to be
recovered from the petitioner, and he is ready to furnish adequate bail
bonds to the satisfaction of the Court.
5. Learned State counsel has opposed the present bail application
on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the
petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner, in furtherance of a common
intention with co-accused Sunil Kumar, committed the murder of the wife
authenticity of this order/judgment
of the complainant while causing injuries to her during the course of
snatching her earrings. It is contended that the petitioner was driving the
motorcycle, whereas co-accused Sunil Kumar was the pillion rider, who
inflicted the fatal datar blow on the head of the deceased, as a result of
which she later succumbed to her injuries. It is further argued that although
Baljit Singh (PW-3) has reportedly turned hostile, he is not the material
witness, and the complainant Gurmail Singh, who is the husband of the
deceased and an eye-witness to the occurrence, is yet to be examined.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds no
merit in the present petition. The allegations against the petitioner are grave
and pertain to a heinous offence resulting in the death of an innocent
woman during the commission of snatching. The role attributed to the
petitioner, though of driving the motorcycle, cannot be viewed in isolation
at this stage, as it prima-facie indicates his active participation in the
occurrence in furtherance of a common intention with the co-accused. The
fact that PW-3 has turned hostile would not materially affect the case of the
prosecution at this stage, as the star witness in the present case is the
complainant Gurmail Singh, who is not only the husband of the deceased
but also an eye-witness to the entire occurrence and is yet to be examined.
7. Further, the petitioner has been in custody for about two years
and nine months; however, keeping in view the gravity and nature of the
allegations and the fact that material witnesses are yet to be examined, no
ground is made out for grant of regular bail. At this stage, there is a
reasonable apprehension that release of the petitioner may adversely affect
authenticity of this order/judgment
the trial.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
9. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case.
10. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
22.05.2026 JUDGE
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
