CRM-M/37648/2026 of HARPAL SINGH ALIAS BHALLA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 17 July 2026

1. The present third petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 0017 dated 02.03.2021, registered under Sections 302, 397 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 328, 201 and 120-B IPC (added later on), corresponding to Sections 103, 311, 3(5), 123, 238 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural, Punjab, during the pendency of trial.

2. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR was registered on the statement of Pardeep Singh, son of deceased Inderjit Singh @ Premi, who stated that his father was working as a driver with Hindraj Iron Scrap, Moga. On 01.03.2021, after unloading scrap at Mandi Gobindgarh, the deceased was returning to Moga in Truck No. PB-29H-5548. When he did not reach back, inquiries were made and it was revealed that he was last seen with co-accused Harpal Singh @ Bhalla near Mullanpur. Thereafter, as per the GPS location of the truck, the complainant along with Ajay Taneja reached near CTU Chowk, KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

Chokiman, Jagraon, where the deceased was found lying dead inside the cabin of the truck with injuries on his body. The cabin was found ransacked and cash ₹ amount of approximately 9 lakh, allegedly carried by the deceased, was missing. During investigation, the present petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of the material collected by the investigating agency, including the alleged involvement in furtherance of common intention with co-accused persons. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with other accused, was involved in the commission of murder of the deceased and removal of the cash amount. After completion of investigation, challan was presented before the learned Trial Court and the case is pending for trial.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no direct evidence connecting him with the alleged occurrence. It is argued that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and the petitioner was not named in the earliest version. The petitioner has been nominated only on the basis of the alleged circumstance of last seen, which by itself is insufficient to establish his involvement. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 01.05.2023 and has undergone more than three years of incarceration. The investigation is complete, challan has already been presented, charges have been framed and the trial is progressing at a slow pace. The first regular bail petition bearing CRM-M No.59492 of 2023 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.02.2024. Thereafter, the second regular bail petition bearing CRM-M No.40151 of 2025 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 02.09.2025. The present petition is being filed on the basis of subsequent changed circumstances, including the prolonged custody KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh undergone by the petitioner and the slow progress of the trial. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Neha Rani and Rachhpal Singh @ Shera, who are facing trial in the same FIR arising out of the same occurrence, have already been granted regular bail by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of parity. It is also submitted that no recovery remains to be effected from the petitioner and his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 16.07.2026, 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 03 years 02 months and 11 days.

6. Learned State counsel, while opposing the bail application, submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and pertain to an offense punishable under Section 302 IPC, involving the murder of the deceased. It is argued that the petitioner has been nominated during investigation on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency, including the circumstance of last seen and other incriminating evidence available on record.

7. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2023 and has undergone incarceration for more than three years, coupled with the fact that the investigation stands completed, challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court and charges have been framed, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is also KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh evident that after dismissal of the second regular bail petition by this Court vide order dated 02.09.2025, only two prosecution witnesses have been examined till date, which reflects the slow progress of the trial. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner is primarily based upon the alleged circumstance of last seen and disclosure statement, and no specific overt act or direct evidence has been attributed to him. Further, the co-accused namely Neha Rani and Rachhpal Singh alias Shera, who are facing trial in the same FIR arising out of the same occurrence, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.07.2022 and 28.02.2024 respectively. Keeping in view the prolonged custody of the petitioner, the stage of trial, the principle of parity with the co-accused and the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (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 Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (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. KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

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:-

1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.

2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.

5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 17.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh