CRM-M/20851/2026 of SIMRANJEET SINGH ALIAS SIMMA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 21 July 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-20851

IN THE HIG IN THE HIG IN THE HIG IN THE HIG Simranjeet Si

State of Punja

Date of decis Date of decis Date of decis Date of decis Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

Present: Present: Present: Present:-

SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO

Nagarik Sura the petitioner commission Bharatiya Ny 120-B of IPC

2. with his co- complainant, the murder, th it on the side 1-2026

GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-20851

20851-2

ingh @ Simma versus ab ion: ion: ion: ion: July 21 July 21 July 21 July 21, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 ading: ading: ading: ading: July July July July 22

22, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME Mr. Charanpal Singh Bagri, Advo Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Pun ***** ***** ***** ***** OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed un aksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BN r, in case bearing FIR No.223 of offences punishable under S yaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BN C), at Police Station Sadar, District The gravamen of the FIR in que -accused, allegedly conspired to namely, Hartik Lakha. It is furth he accused dismembered the bod of Chintpurni Road.

HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

….Petitioner ….Respondent EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL ocate for the petitioner. njab. nder Section 483 of the Bharatiya NSS’) for grant of regular bail to dated 19.12.2024, registered for Sections 103, 238, 61(2) of the NS’) (erstwhile Sections 302, 201, t Hoshiarpur. estion is that the petitioner, along o murder the grandson of the her alleged that, after committing dy of the deceased after throwing

r t a o r e , g e g g MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-20851

20851-2026

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been in custody since 03.01.2025. It has been contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. Learned counsel has submitted that the entire prosecution case rests on mere suspicion, without any credible or direct evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. It has further been argued that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and that and even in the statement dated 23.12.2024 made by the grandfather of the deceased, he had stated that he did not suspect any person. However, after an unexplained delay, a subsequent statement dated 26.12.2024 was recorded, wherein, for the first time, the petitioner and the other co-accused were nominated, which, according to the learned counsel, is nothing but an afterthought. It has also been submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Joginder Kaur and Harbhajan Singh. Learned counsel has further argued that the challan is completely silent with regard to any motive attributable to the petitioner for committing the alleged offence. It has been contended that the entire case of the prosecution is founded on circumstantial evidence and that there is no material on record to establish the petitioner's complicity in the offence in question. It has also been argued that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to establish the identity of the petitioner in connection with the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel has submitted that the alleged recovery of the weapons was effected pursuant to a joint disclosure statement allegedly made by the petitioner and his co-accused, and such recovery, by itself, cannot MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-20851

20851-2026

constitute a valid ground for denying the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

3.1. Learned counsel has contended that the trial is procrastinating and the folly thereof is not attributable to the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that after investigation, challan stands presented. Out of total 22 cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date.

3.2. Learned counsel further states that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is a man aged 31 years having clean antecedents. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars further. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are serious/ grave allegations against the petitioner. It has been argued that the petitioner along with his co-accused has committed the murder of the deceased and to dismember the body of the deceased, the accused threw it on the side of the road. Learned State counsel has submitted that in the disclosure statement of the petitioner and his co- accused, they have got recovered two blood-stained weapons.

4.1. Learned State counsel has submitted that, in case, the petitioner is granted concession of bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also interfere with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. Learned State counsel has further asserted that upon culmination of investigation, challan has been presented and out of total 22 cited prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date and, thus, the trial is at nascent stage. Accordingly, the dismissal of the present petition is prayed for. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-20851

20851-2026

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the paper-book.

6. As per the prosecution case and the material available on record, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Perusal of the prosecution case, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner, in conspiracy with his co-accused, allegedly committed the murder of the grandson of Parshotam Lakha. It is further alleged that, after committing the offence, the accused disposed of the body of the deceased by throwing it on the side of the road. Considering the gravity and heinous nature of the allegations, this Court finds the apprehension expressed by the prosecution to be prima facie well-founded and, if enlarged on bail, the petitioner may evade the process of law and may also influence, intimidate, or tamper with the prosecution witnesses or evidence.

7. The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and is in the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court must evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. The Court must also assess the likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Additionally, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the Court must weigh the potential MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-20851

20851-2026

danger of bail undermining the administration of justice or thwarting its due course. A profitable reference in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, relevant whereof reads as under: “14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati Prahlad Singh Bhati Prahlad Singh Bhati Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1 Court 1 Court 1 Court 179

79). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) (Criminal) (Criminal) (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

c. Prima facie satisfaction of the cou cou cou courtrtrtrt in support of the charge. (see Ram GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) Ram GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) Ram GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) Ram GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338. (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338. (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338. (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338.”

8. The petitioner is accused of committing a capital offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and is facing trial therein. The present case pertains to a heinous and brutal offence of murder, wherein the petitioner and his co-accused are alleged to have murdered the deceased after MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-20851

20851-2026

hatching conspiracy and throw the body of the deceased on the side of the road in order to dismember it. A perusal of the record further reveals that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and his co-accused is grave and serious resulting in loss of human life.

9. As per prosecution case, total 22 prosecution witnesses have been cited and out of which, none has been examined till date, thereby, unequivocally demonstrating that trial is at a nascent stage. It is not in dispute that key witnesses are yet to be examined.

10. The allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious, which prima facie indicate his active participation in the commission of the offence. In the considered opinion of this Court the very magnitude, brutality and seriousness of the crime clearly disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of bail. In the considered opinion of this Court, at this stage, no accentuating circumstances have been made which may, prima facie, constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, especially in light of the seriousness of the allegations. Furthermore, there exists a real and tangible apprehension that if enlarged on bail, the petitioner may abscond to evade trial or attempt to influence, threaten, or intimidate prosecution witnesses as the prosecution evidence is still to unfold.

11. Having regard to the nature of accusations, the manner of commission of the offence, seriousness of the crime, the material collected during investigation and recovery of two blood-stained weapons, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-20851

20851-2026

12. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with this order.

13. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 21 July 21 July 21 July 21, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment