CRM-M/35616/2026 of SARWAN SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 7 August 2026

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, 1973) seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioners in the cross0version registered vide GD No. 46 dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P02), arising out of the main case registered vide FIR No. 260 dated 21.10.2025, under Sections 103, 125, 118(1), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 302, 336, 146, 148 and 149 IPC) read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Lopoke, Amritsar (Annexure P01). The cross0version has been registered under Sections 109, 125, 333, 305, 118(1), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 336, 452, 380, 324, 146, 148 and 149 IPC) read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

 

2. As per the prosecution version, the present FIR was registered on the statement of Jasbir Singh son of Hari Singh, resident of village Boparai Khurd, Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar. It is alleged that on 20.10.2025 at about 09:00/09:30 PM, the complainant along with his father Hari Singh (deceased), brother Lakhbir Singh, Harpreet Singh and other relatives was present near the flour mill of Harjinder Singh at village Boparai Khurd, when the accused persons armed with various weapons allegedly arrived at the spot and started an altercation with them. It is alleged that Rachpal Singh raised a lalkara, whereafter the accused persons caused injuries to the complainant party. It is further alleged that Rachpal Singh caught hold of Hari Singh and Ranjit Singh gave a Gandasa blow on his head, resulting in his death. Other accused persons are alleged to have caused injuries to the remaining injured persons and fired shots in the air before fleeing from the spot. The occurrence is stated to have taken place due to previous enmity between the parties. On the basis of the statement of Jasbir Singh, the present FIR was registered.

3. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the cross0version, are that on 20.10.2025, an occurrence took place at village Boparai Khurd, Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar, in which a cross0version was registered on the statement of Rachhpal Singh. It is the case of the prosecution that the said occurrence arose out of a previous dispute between the parties. As per the version given by Rachhpal Singh, on the date of occurrence, he along with other persons was present in the area of village Boparai Khurd, when a quarrel took place between both the groups. It is alleged that the opposite party, armed with weapons, caused injuries to the complainant side and KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

   committed various offences. During the course of inquiry into the statement of Rachhpal Singh, the allegations were found to disclose a prima facie case, whereupon the cross0version was registered. It is further the case of the prosecution that since both versions pertain to the same occurrence, the cross0 version was registered to facilitate a fair and complete investigation into the rival allegations levelled by both sides. The investigation in the matter is being conducted in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present cross0version arising out of the same occurrence. It is submitted that the main FIR No. 260 dated 21.10.2025 was registered on the statement of Jasbir Singh regarding the murder of Hari Singh, wherein the allegations are primarily against the opposite party, including Rachhpal Singh, who is the complainant of the present cross0 version. 3.1 It is further submitted that the present cross0version came into existence subsequently and appears to be a counterblast to the main FIR. The petitioner has been implicated only due to the rival version of the same incident and no specific overt act, injury, weapon, or individual role has been attributed to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co0 accused, Lakhbir Singh has already been granted the concession of regular bail in cross version by this Court in CRM0M01697202026 dated 08.07.2026. 3.2 Learned counsel further submits that the allegations in the cross0 version are general and omnibus in nature and the petitioner is not alleged to have caused any fatal injury. It is argued that the occurrence is a result of a KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

 

group clash between both sides and the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not required as the investigation has substantially progressed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent0State and has filed the custody certificate dated 06.08.2026, 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 05 months and 16 days.

6. Learned State counsel opposes the bail petition and submits that the petitioner is involved in a serious cross0version arising out of the same occurrence, wherein offences under the BNS and Arms Act have been invoked. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are part of a group clash and his role is required to be examined during trial.

7. Be that as it may, considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioner, i.e. 05 months and 16 days, and the fact that the investigation stands completed, challan has already been presented, it is apparent that the trial is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. Further, keeping in view that the present case arises out of a cross0 version relating to the same occurrence and the petitioner has not been attributed any specific role of causing any fatal injury, coupled with the fact that similarly situated co0accused have already been extended the concession of bail, this Court finds that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.

8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
 

 , 2018 (2) R.C.R. KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

   (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   

           (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful 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:0    !" !" # " !         "    !$       !   !! !!! ! !!%

    !" &   ! 

 !  "  

   !" !"   !   ! ! "!   '   

(      % ( 

      ! (

  )! %

*  ($+ ,
"+  !!   "                   !  !    " "! " (

  )! 

"!!  *- !! !  !

!   ! ( 

   ! KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

    !!  ! #! !  ! !  !! ! .    %      !"! "    %     !!  /  0/1    / !

 #!!   ! !   

   "  "! !  !    ! 



 # ! !  !! ! 2   (

  )!  %    "!      

 "!!  3   ! " !    !"     % ! 

"4    ! 4 !! ! 5   !     % (    

    " 

        !        6 !!         %    !    !! !       ! ! ! ! !    ! !!

!  !   3,

*04 

&' (' 

7# , 

9,/ 7

9,/ KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh