CRM-M/15517/2026 of PIYARA SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 27 July 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 27.07.2026

PIYARA SINGH

....Petitioner

V/s

STATE OF PUNJAB

.…Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present: Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, Advocate for

Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Rashi Verma, Advocate and

Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate

for the complainant.

*** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.76 dated 05.06.2025 registered under Sections 103, 115 (2), 351 (2), 191 (3), 190, 61 (2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (offence under Section 103 of BNS deleted and Section 105 of BNS added subsequently) at Police Station Arniwala, District Fazilka.

2. Custody certificate dated 26.07.2026 filed in Court today is taken on record.

3. On a statement having been given by one Shinderpal, the FIR in question was registered. It was alleged that on 04.06.2025, at about 03:30 PM, when the complainant and his brother Budh Parkash along with his sister Manjeet Kaur were working in their cotton fields, a number of persons MANI KUMAR

(26 named accused) including the petitioner and other co-accused came there on tractors while being armed with various weapons such as sticks, iron rods, spades and other implements. They started demolishing a government sanctioned water course adjoining the fields. When the complainant side objected to the said act, the said persons allegedly exhorted that the complainant side be killed and thereafter started assaulting them. Manjeet Kaur received certain injuries, whereas Budh Parkash expired at the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It has been argued that a large number of persons were named in the FIR, many of whom were found to be innocent during investigation, proving the intention to falsely implicate a large number of persons. She submits that though the FIR was initially registered under Section 302 IPC, during the course of investigation, the same was deleted and Section 304 IPC (Section 105 BNS) was added as, Budh Parkash had expired on account of a heart failure and there were no injuries on his person. It has been submitted that the case in fact relates to simple injuries alleged to have been inflicted upon the person of Manjeet Kaur and even otherwise the petitioner, even as per the allegations, was not armed at the relevant time. 4.1

Learned counsel submits that co-accused Paramjeet Singh against whom the allegation was that he had given an iron rod blow on the head of Budh Parkash, has been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 09.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-54709-2025 titled as ‘Paramjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ (Annexure P-4). She further submits that investigation stands completed, no recovery has to be made from the petitioner; final report stands submitted on 02.09.2025; charges have been framed on 04.04.2026; out of 30 witnesses, none has been examined; trial MANI KUMAR

will take a sufficiently long time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application, stating that earlier also an FIR under Section 302 IPC had been registered in which the petitioner was an accused, which pertained to the murder of uncle of the complainant.

6. To this, on a query having been raised by the Court, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner had been found to be innocent in the said case.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. Concededly, the FIR was initially registered under Section 302 IPC but subsequently the same was deleted and Section 304 IPC (Section 105 BNS) was added as it was found that there was no injury on the person of deceased Budh Parkash and he had died on account of a heart failure. As to whether the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder would be made out or not, shall be determined at the stage of trial. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than one year, he having been arrested on 05.06.2025. Co-accused Paramjeet Singh has already been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 09.03.2026 passed in CRM-M- 54709-2025 titled as ‘Paramjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ (Annexure P- 4). The case of the petitioner is on a better footing than the said Paramjeet Singh as the petitioner, even as per the allegation, was unarmed and no specific role has been attributed to him. Investigation stands concluded. Final report stands submitted as far as back on 02.09.2025 and charges have also been framed on 04.04.2026. Out of 30 witnesses, none has been examined till date. It is therefore, clear that trial will take a sufficiently long time and in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be MANI KUMAR

served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)

JUDGE July 27, 2026 Mani Kumar

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No MANI KUMAR