Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/30514/2026 of YASHPAL @ SARPANCH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 27 August 2026
(O & M) ::1:: (214) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30514-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 27.08.2026 Yashpal @ Sarpanch ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia,
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::
(214) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-30514-2026 (O & M) Date of Decision: 27.08.2026 Yashpal @ Sarpanch ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Dhanda, Advocate, Mr. Mukul Malik, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kuljinder Singh, AAG, Punjab. **** 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.172 dated 22.10.2020 under Sections 103, 61, 195, 190, 341 and 249 BNS (Sections 302, 120-B, 148, 149, 473 and 212 IPC) and Sections 25, 27/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Sadar Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR but has been nominated during the course of the investigation, which has found that it is the petitioner along with Pawan Nehra and Monu alias Sukha who were the actual assailants. However, two material witnesses namely PW Manjeet Kaur and PW Rajveer Kaur, who are the mother
::2:: and wife of the deceased respectively have been examined during the course of the Trial and have not supported the case of the prosecution. As the petitioner is in custody since 20.04.2021 but only 05 of the 39 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of regular bail particularly when 04 other co-accused namely Balkaran Singh @ Vicky, Nitin Kumar, Jarmal Singh @ Jarmanjit Singh and Gurinder Singh alias Gora alias Gurinder Pal Singh have already been granted the concession of bail.
3. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is a member of a gang of one Lawrence Bishnoi. He is one of the prime accused having shot at the deceased. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession as prayed for particularly when 22 other cases are pending against him. He, however, concedes that 05 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far out of which 02 material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and that he is in custody 20.04.2021.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 20.04.2021 but only 05 of the 39 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.
::3::
6. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Yashpal @ Sarpanch is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
7. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other case/crime other than the case(s) referred to in this order.
8. If any attempt whatsoever is made by the petitioner and/or his family members/friends to contact/threaten/intimidate any of the witnesses of the present occurrence, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted vide this order.
8. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from Trial without sufficient cause.
9. The petition stands disposed of.
10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE August 27, 2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable :- Yes/No