Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 July, 2026
CRM-M-37545-2026 1
209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37545-2026
Date of Decision: 17.07.2026
KULWANT SINGH ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Narinder S. Lucky, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab.
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure), seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner
in FIR No. 41 dated 12.07.2023, initially registered under Sections 302, 307,
324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (with Sections 323 and 326 IPC
added later and Section 324 IPC deleted), corresponding to Sections 103, 109
and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (with Sections 115(1) and 119
BNS added subsequently and Section 118 BNS deleted), registered at Police
Station Rureke Kalan, District Barnala, during the pendency of the trial.
2. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR came to be registered
on the statement of Gurpreet Singh, who stated that his father, Gurmel Singh,
had been residing at a farmhouse situated in the fields at Village Pakho Kalan.
On the night of 11/12.07.2023, at about 11:57 p.m., Gurmel Singh made a
phone call to his wife informing her that some unknown persons had attacked
him and his grandson, Avijot Singh. Upon receiving the information, the
complainant, along with his brothers, rushed to the spot and found Gurmel
Singh and Avijot Singh lying in pools of blood with multiple injuries. Gurmel
KUMUD VERMA
2026.07.17 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRM-M-37545-2026 2
Singh and the injured Avijot Singh disclosed that two unknown persons,
whose faces were covered and who were armed with sharp-edged weapons,
had attacked them while they were sleeping. Both the injured were
immediately shifted to Civil Hospital, Tapa, where Gurmel Singh was
declared dead, while Avijot Singh was admitted for treatment. On the basis of
the said statement, the present FIR was initially registered against unknown
assailants.
2.1 During the course of investigation, the present petitioner was
nominated as an accused on the basis of an alleged extra-judicial confession
made by co-accused Baru Singh before Ranjit Singh, Member Panchayat of
Village Pakho Kalan. It is the case of the prosecution that co-accused Baru
Singh was nursing a grudge against the deceased on account of previous
enmity and, in furtherance of the said motive, conspired with the present
petitioner and co-accused Vikramjit Singh to commit the crime. The
prosecution further relies upon the disclosure statements of the accused, the
recoveries allegedly effected pursuant thereto, and other circumstantial
evidence collected during investigation. Upon completion of investigation, the
challan was presented before the learned Trial Court, where the case is
presently pending for trial.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated and was not named in the FIR, which was initially
registered against two unknown masked assailants. It is argued that the
petitioner’s nomination rests solely on the alleged extra-judicial confession of
a co-accused, which is a weak piece of evidence and requires strict
corroboration. It is further submitted that there is no direct eyewitness account
KUMUD VERMA
2026.07.17 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRM-M-37545-2026 3
against the petitioner and that the complainant, who appeared as PW-1, has not
supported the prosecution case during trial. Learned counsel further contends
that the investigation stands concluded, the challan has been presented, and
the petitioner has remained in custody since 17.07.2023. It is also submitted
that a co-accused, namely Vikramjit Singh, has already been granted the
concession of regular bail by this Court on the ground of parity. Since the
material witnesses have already been examined. Trial is progressing slowly,
the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab, has put in appearance
on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated
16.07.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the
custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period
of 02 years 11 months and 29 days.
6. learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail
and submits that the petitioner is involved in a grave offence involving the
murder of one person and causing injuries to another. It is argued that during
investigation, sufficient material was collected connecting the petitioner with
the commission of the offence, including the extra-judicial confession made
by the co-accused, disclosure statements and other incriminating
circumstances. Learned State counsel contends that the allegations are serious
in nature and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of
regular bail.
7. Be that as it may, considering the custody period already
undergone by the petitioner, coupled with the fact that the investigation in the
KUMUD VERMA
2026.07.17 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRM-M-37545-2026 4
present case stands concluded, challan has already been presented before the
learned Trial Court and charges have been framed, the petitioner is no longer
required for any custodial interrogation. It is also pertinent to note that none of
the prosecution witnesses have been examined till date and, considering the
number of witnesses cited by the prosecution, the trial is likely to consume
considerable time before reaching its logical conclusion. It is further relevant
to mention that co-accused Vikramjit Singh, who is alleged to be involved in
the same occurrence and is facing trial on similar set of allegations, has
already been extended the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order
dated 01.04.2026. The case of the present petitioner stands on a similar
footing, particularly when the prosecution case against him is based upon
circumstantial evidence, alleged extra-judicial confession and disclosure
statements, the evidentiary value of which is to be assessed during the course
of trial. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to consideration on the ground of parity
as well.
8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and
refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent
until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms
an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently
recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v.
State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these
circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful
KUMUD VERMA
2026.07.17 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRM-M-37545-2026 5
purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by
imposing appropriate conditions.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is
ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and
surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further
subject to the following conditions:-
1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such
person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the
investigating agency.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt,
directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any
prosecution witness.
3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India
without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial
Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall
furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well
as the learned Trial Court.
4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before
accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the
petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present
correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate
documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the
correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the
acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification
report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is
found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to
the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail
in accordance with law.
5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court,
either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such
period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account
KUMUD VERMA
2026.07.17 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CRM-M-37545-2026 6Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative
bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of
immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material
particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute
a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance
with law.
6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as
well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in
residential address or mobile number within seven days from
the date of such change.
7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar
nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain
present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date
fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in
accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the
proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned
Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid
conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial
proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to
proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the
concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate
coercive process, including warrants of arrest.
(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
17.07.2026
kv
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
KUMUD VERMA
2026.07.17 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
