CRM-M/36328/2026 of MANPREET SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 10 September 2026

1. T under Section “BNSS”) for 13.03.2024 reg District Hoshi was dismissed

2. T recorded by t

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH C T SINGH

Versus PUNJAB

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MA e date when the judgment is reser e date when the judgment is pron e date when the judgment is uplo bsite ether only operative part of the ju nounced or whether the full judg nounced e delay, if any, of the pronouncem gment and reasons thereof. Mr. Tanvir Singh Attariwala, Adv Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab *** BATRA, J. The instant one is the second p n 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Sur grant of regular bail in case a gistered under Section 302 of IP iarpur. His previous petition b d as withdrawn on 19.01.2026. The aforementioned FIR was reg the complainant, Narajan Kau B AND HARYANA AT H CRM-M-36328-2026 (O&M)

... Petitioner

...Respondent ANISHA BATRA rved 09.09.2026 nounced 10.09.2026 aded on the 10.09.2026 udgment is gment is Full ment of full Not applicable vocate for the petitioner b petition filed by the petitioner raksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short arising out of FIR No.15 dated PC at Police Station Garhdiwala, bearing No.CRM-M-1227-2026 istered on the basis of statement ur alleging therein that on the

r t d , t e AMIT SHARMA

intervening n sleeping in he room of her el her room. Wi present petitio of Manjot Sin and he succum managed to fl of land in his with her cons money from th

3. A initiated. Pos conducted. Th gandasa used concluded.

4. It falsely implica about two and as only 11 out who was the o as PW-9, but offences. Ther of offence of night of 12/13.03.2024, she al er house. At about 1:00 AM, on lder grandson Manjot Singh, she thin her sight, her younger gra oner, who was carrying an iron a gh, due to which he sustained in mbed to the injuries. She raised a ee. The cause of grudge was th name about one month back for sent, was going abroad, whereas he victim. After registration of FIR, in st-mortem examination of de he petitioner was arrested on th in the crime was recovered from t is argued by learned counsel fo ated in this case. He has suffer d a half years. The trial will take t of 20 witnesses have been exa only eye-witness to the alleged t has not implicated the petitio re is no other circumstance to co murder of the victim. Each da long with her grandsons was n hearing some noises from the e had woken up and came out of andson Manpreet Singh, i.e. the axe, struck blows on the person njuries, blood started oozing out, alarm and then the petitioner had hat the victim had sold one acre r a sum of Rs. 21–22 lakhs and, s the petitioner was demanding nvestigation proceedings were ad body of the victim was he same day. The blood-stained m him. Investigation now stands or the petitioner that he has been ed incarceration for a period of e considerable time to conclude amined so far. The complainant, occurrence, has been examined oner in commission of subject onnect him with the commission ay spent by him in custody has s e f e n , d e , g e s d s n f e , d t n s AMIT SHARMA

furnished him incarceration Article 21 of t conditions to deserves to be

5. P serious allega than the grand previous state extended bene recovery of b dead body of t with the pet commission o successive pe absconding if does not deser

6. T counsel for the

7. S successive one to move succe Court, while e any fresh gro a new ground afresh to seek co militates against his fundam the Constitution of India. He is be imposed upon him. It is, the e allowed. Per contra, learned State coun ations against the petitioner. Th dmother of the petitioner. On a ement alone, the petitioner ha efit of bail. There are various blood-stained gandasa at the ins the victim having been found at titioner, which suggest invol of offence of murder of the vi tition is not maintainable. Th f extended benefit of bail. It is rve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival e parties at considerable length. So far as the question of mainta e is concerned, it may be mentio essive bail application for grant entertaining such a subsequent b und which persuade it to take oncession of bail. His prolonged ental rights guaranteed under ready to abide by the terms and erefore, argued that the petition nsel has argued that there are he complainant was none other account of her resiling from her as not become entitled to be other circumstances, including stance of the petitioner and the his home where he lived, along lvement of the petitioner in ctim. The present one being a here are chances of petitioner's hence, argued that the petition submissions made by learned ainability of this petition being oned that, an accused has a right of bail and it is the duty of the bail application, to consider that a view different from the one

d r d n e r r e g e g n a s n d g t e t e AMIT SHARMA

taken in the e noted that eve action for filin kept in custo considered ev caused homic 12/13.03.2024 occurrence, ha appearing as a has also place Kulwinder Si incident imme statement, how subject offenc and six mon consideration spent by the p but without m Court is of the grant of bail. A to be released bonds to th Magistrate/Du earlier application is made out o ery day spent by an accused in c ng a bail application under certa ody for indefinite period and ven if it is filed repeatedly. Th cidal death of his own brothe

4. The complainant, who claime as now turned hostile and has no a witness before the learned trial ed on record Annexure P-3, copy ingh, village Sarpanch, who h ediately thereafter and had go wever, he too has not implicated ces. The petitioner is in custody nths. The trial will take tim the nature of the evidence which petitioner in custody, and the att meaning to make any comment e considered opinion that the pe Accordingly, the petition is allow d on bail subject to his furnish he satisfaction of the learne uty Magistrate concerned. or not. It is also required to be custody provides a new cause of ain circumstances. He cannot be d the bail application can be he petitioner is alleged to have er on the intervening night of ed to be the eye-witness of the ot implicated the petitioner while l Court. The petitioner's counsel y of sworn deposition of PW-10 had been informed about the ne to the police to record his d the petitioner in commission of for a period of about two years me to conclude. Taking into h has come on record, the period tendant facts and circumstances, on the merits of the case, this etitioner has made out a case for wed and the petitioner is ordered hing personal as well as surety ed trial Court/Chief Judicial e f e e e f e e l e s f s o d , s r d y l AMIT SHARMA

8. S any, is rendere 10.09.2026 Amit Sharma

Since the main petition has been ed infructuous. ( Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

- Yes/No

f AMIT SHARMA