Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/40735/2026 of SUKHWINDER SINGH @ NIKKA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 10 September 2026
(O & M) ::1:: (226) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40735-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 Sukhwinder Singh @ Nikka ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Neeraj Jain,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
::1::
(226) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40735-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 Sukhwinder Singh @ Nikka ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Neeraj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0092 dated 22.04.2025 under Sections 105, 123, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (Sections 304, 328, 34 IPC, 1860), registered at Police Station Kalan Wali, District Sirsa.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Gurdass Singh and the same reads as under:- ""It is stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and working as labourer. We are three siblings and all are married. We two brothers reside together and my younger brother Deep Singh is married to Kamal Kaur daughter of Malkiat Singh, resident of village Khokhar. My brother has one son namely Shubhdeep Singh aged about 3 years. My brother Deep Singh was addicted to intoxicating tablets and Chita for many days. I and my family members
::2:: persuaded him on many occasions but my brother did not leave intoxication. I and wife of my brother namely Kamaldeep Kaur enquired from Deep Singh as to from where, he bring the intoxicating tablets then my brother Deep Singh informed that he brings intoxicating tablets and chita from Nikka Singh son of Ajaib Singh and Amarjit Singh son of Gurmail Singh, residents of Dadu. I and my family members visited the houses of Nikka Singh son of Ajaib Singh and Amarjeet Singh son of Gurmail Singh, residents of Dadu and requested him not to supply the intoxicating tablets and chita to my brother because my brother is consuming intoxication in excess quantity and he may die due to high dose of intoxication and his children and our family would ruin. We persuaded them two three times after visiting their houses but they did not pay any heed to us and stated that they sell intoxicating substance for earning money and they have no concern, if brother of me dies tomorrow or today. Yesterday, on 21.04.2025, my brother Deep Singh had gone to Nikka Singh son of Ajaib Singh and Amarjeet Singh son of Gurmail Singh, residents of Dadu for bringing intoxicating substance and at about 8:00 P.M., I got received information that my brother had consumed high dose of intoxicating tablets/heroine and has died. On receipt of this information, I and my family members visited village Dadu and on inquiry, we came to know that my brother Deep Singh has died due to over consumption of intoxicate tablets and heroine given by Nikka Singh son of Ajaib Singh and Amarjit Singh son of Gurmail Singh, residents of Dadu. Strict legal action be taken against both of them. Today on 22.04.2025 I gave information. You came to the spot and action be taken. I have got
::3:: recorded my statement, heard which is correct. Sd/ Gurdass Singh".
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no eye- witness to the occurrence. A co-accused Bhola Singh @ Gurvinder Singh has been granted the concession of bail by this Court. As the petitioner is in custody since 22.04.2025 but only 04 of the 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State has filed a reply dated 11.08.2026, which has already been taken on record. While referring to the same, he contends that the petitioner is duly named in the FIR and also in the disclosure statement of co-accused Amarjeet Singh. During the course of the investigation, they got demarcated the place where on 21.04.2025, they along with their co-accused had given an overdose of heroin and intoxicating pills to the deceased. The nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not entitled him to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. As per the case of the complainant, the intoxicating tablets and heroin were provided to the deceased by the petitioner and Amarjeet Singh. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner are grave. Bhola Singh @ Gurvinder Singh has been granted the concession of bail by this Court as he has not been named in the FIR and is alleged to be a supplier of these drugs.
::4:: Therefore, the case of the petitioner is on a different footing than that of Bhola Singh @ Gurvinder Singh.
7. Keeping in view the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed.
8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE September 10, 2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable :- Yes/No