CRA-S/2088/2026 of SANDEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER on 27 August 2026

1. The appeal challenges order dated 19.05.2026 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which application for regular bail of the appellant in FIR No.50 dated 06.05.2020 under Sections 302, 307, 323, 326, 324, 341, 188, 506, 148, 149 IPC, 120-B IPC, Sections 51, 54 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Passiana, District Patiala, Punjab was dismissed.

2. The case was registered on statement of Yadwinder Singh, who alleged that on 05.05.2020, when he along with his brother Bhupinder Singh and cousin-Balwinder Singh was returning to his Village Passiana from Patiala in his car, which Bhupinder Singh was driving. At about 08:30 P.M., when they reached under by-pass flyover, a silver Swift car came from the front and hit their car. Their car stopped and in the light of the car, he saw Krishan Kumar alias Chicha s/o Khila Ram, Varinder Singh s/o Balvir Singh and Manjit Singh alias Bittu Gujjer s/o Dayal Ram, Gurmeet Singh s/o Ajmer Singh, Kulwinder Singh s/o Karnail Singh, all residents of Village Passiana, armed with swords and knives alighting from the car. They attacked them, broke the windowpanes of the car, caught his brother Bhupinder Singh, dragged him out, thereafter Krishan Kumar alias Chicha and Manjit Singh alias Bittu Gujjer, who were armed with swords stabbed his brother Bhupinder Singh in the abdomen and others also attacked him with swords and knives. During this period two more cars reached the spot carrying Lakhi s/o Prithi Ram, Mandeep Singh, Sandeep Singh s/o Jagdish Ram, Meshi s/o Jaisi Ram, Gurmeet Singh s/o Ajmer Singh, Nindi s/o Karnail Singh, Jagtar Singh s/o Kesar Singh, resident of Village Passiana, Preet Saini, Harinder Mahal both residents of Village Korjiwala and Rupi, resident of Village Dhablan, who accompanied with other persons, armed with swords sticks and deadly weapons, came out of their respective cars. They too attacked his brother Bhupinder Singh, who was lying on the ground. He and Balwinder Singh tried to save him. But two were attacked them with sticks and kirpan. Varinder Singh, in order to kill him, gave a sword blow on his head which he resisted and the sword hit his right arm. Balwinder Singh too was injured. When they raised cries of “Maar Ditta Maar Ditta”, the assailants fled from the spot along with their respective weapons and cars. They were admitted in the hospital. His brother Bhupinder Singh, who was referred to PGI, succumbed to his injuries. Motive of the occurrence was that his brother-

Bhupinder Singh was Sarpanch of the village. During elections, he was supported by Krishan Kumar alias Chicha party, who wanted him to disburse grants, given to the Village, to them but Bhupinder Singh refused to do so.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was not named in the FIR. He had no previous criminal record and had clean antecedents. He was involved only due to political vendetta on supplementary statement of the complainant, after delay of 10 days. Further, appellant was found innocent during investigation, he was summoned by way of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. although there was no specific role attributed to him. Appellant was, in fact, not present at the scene of occurrence at the time of incident and was present at Downtown Restaurant, Patiala. Allegations levelled against him were general, omnibus, without any specific attribution. Primary role of causing fatal injuries was attributed to Krishan Kumar alias Chicha and Manjit Singh alias Bittu. Appellant was in custody w.e.f. 29.04.2026. Therefore, he deserved to be released on regular bail.

4. Custody certificate dated 22.08.2026 and status report by way of affidavit of Mr. Fateh Singh Brar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub- Division Samana, District Patiala on behalf of respondent-State has been filed. The same is made part of the record. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2, opposes the prayer for regular bail submitting that appellant was named in the FIR. Though, he was found innocent during investigation, he was summoned by the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The order of learned Trial Court summoning the appellant was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Release of appellant on regular bail would pose imminent threat to the complainant. Application regarding threats extended to the witnesses were already moved before the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Patiala. Appellant, therefore, did not deserve the concession of regular bail.

5. Though, co-accused namely Krishan Kumar alias Chicha and Manjit Singh alias Bittu Gujjer have been allowed regular bail by this Court, appellant cannot claim parity as bail has been allowed to co-accused on the ground of prolonged incarceration. Period of custody undergone by the appellant i.e. 3 months 24 days cannot be considered prolonged, considering the maximum sentence provided under Section 302 IPC. Appellant was allegedly member of the unlawful assembly which assaulted the deceased who was lying on the ground and also attacked the persons, who intended to rescue him. In view of the grave nature of allegations against the appellant, the role attributed, the 31 injuries caused which led to death of Bhupinder Singh, the quantum of punishment conviction may entail and the seriousness and gravity of the charge, it is not a fit case to enlarge the appellant on regular bail. As such, there is no error apparent on the face of the impugned order deserving interference in appeal.

6. The appeal stands dismissed.

7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE

HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No