Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kirpal Singh @ Pala vs State Of Punjab on 11 February, 2026
CRM-M-57513--2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
CRM
CRM-M-57513-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 11.02.2026
Kirpal Singh @ pala ....Petitioner
State of Punjab ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MS.
MS JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present: Mr. H.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner
petitioner.
Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab.
-.-
MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)
1. This is the first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail in FIR No. 162 dated 13.12.2019, registered under Sections 307, 224, 332, 353, 186, 130, 148, 149, 201, 483, 411, 120-B B IPC, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Moonak, District Sangrur, during the pendency of the trial.
2. As per the prosecution version, on 13.12.2019, ASI Baldev Singh along with other police officials was escorting under under-trial trial prisoner Bhagwan Singh @ Gaggi from Central Jail, Bathinda to the Co Court urt at Moonak. After production in Court, while returning, a Brezza car bearing No. PB PB-05-AG-6605 6605 intercepted them near the court complex at Moonak. 4-5 4 5 unidentified persons allegedly opened fire at the police party with the intention to rescue accused-Bhagwan Singh @ Gag ggi.
During the occurrence, one police official sustained a bullet injury and accused Bhagwan Singh @ Gaggi was forcibly freed from police custody by the assailants, who fled from the spot along with him. The present FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of ASI Baldev Singh.
TRIPTI SAINI2026.02.11 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-57513--2025 (O&M) -2-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither named in the original FIR nor is there any allegation of hi hiss direct involvement therein. His name has surfaced only on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, co accused, who himself was not named in the FIR, which disclosure statement has no evidentiary value.
4. It is further argued that at the time of the aalleged lleged occurrence, the petitioner was already in judicial custody and, therefore, the question of his participation in the alleged incident does not arise. The petitioner was subsequently arrested in the present case on production warrants. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner and no specific overt act has been attributed to him.
5. Learned counsel further submits that co co-accused, accused, including Bhagwan Singh @ Gaggi and others, have already been granted the concession of regular bail and the case of the petitioner is on parity with them. The petitioner is in custody since 19.12.2019, the investigation stands completed, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. It is, thus, thus, prayed that the petitioner be released on regular bail.
6. Learned State counsel has filed a detailed status report, which is taken on record and has opposed the bail application. It is contended that the present case pertains to a grave and serious offence offence wherein the accused, in furtherance of a pre-planned planned criminal conspiracy, facilitated the escape of under under-trial trial prisoner Bhagwan Singh @ Gaggi from police custody by firing upon the police party, resulting in injuries to a police official. It is sub submitted mitted that the petitioner Kirpal Singh @ Pala played a specific role in hatching the conspiracy for rescuing the accused from lawful custody and was subsequently nominated on the basis of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.11 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-57513--2025 (O&M) -3- material collected during investigation. The vehicle used in the cr crime ime was found affixed with a fictitious number plate and further offences were added during investigation. It is further contended that the petitioner has a long criminal history, with as many as 45 other criminal cases registered against him, reflecting his h habitual involvement in serious offences. Though the petitioner is in custody for the last 5 years and 8 months, learned State couunsel submits that keeping in view the gravity of the offence, his criminal antecedents and the role attributed to him in the present case, se, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail and the present petition deserves dismissal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
8. The allegations in the present case are of very serious nature. The prosecution case is that a pre-planned pre planned conspiracy was hatched to secure the release of an under-trial trial prisoner from police custody and, in furtherance thereof, armed assailants intercepted the police party and opened fire, res resulting ulting in injuries to a police official and facilitating the escape of the accused. As per the status report, the present petitioner is alleged to have played a role in the conspiracy leading to the commission of the said offence.
9. The record further reveals reveals that the petitioner is not a first first-time time offender. As many as 45 other criminal cases are stated to have been registered against him. The nature of these cases includes offences under Sections 302, 307, 395, 399, 402 IPC, offences under the Arms Arms Act, NDPS Act, offences relating to criminal conspiracy, attempt to murder, dacoity, unlawful activities and prison-
prison related offences. The sheer number and gravity of the cases reflect a consistent TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.11 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-57513--2025 (O&M) -4- pattern of involvement in serious and organized criminal activities. Such antecedents cannot be ignored while considering a prayer for regular bail.
10. Though it is true that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 5 years and 8 months, mere long incarceration by itself is not a ground to enlarge him on bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly when the allegations pertain to an armed attack on a police party and facilitation of escape from lawful custody. The case of the petitioner is also not on parity with the co-accused who have been granted bail, as the role attributed to him and his extensive criminal antecedents distinguish him from others.
11. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the extensive criminal histor history y of the petitioner involving him in 45 other FIRs, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
February 11,, 2026
202 (MANDEEP PANNU)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
TRIPTI SAINI
2026.02.11 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document