Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinderpal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
225
CRM-M-66933
66933-2025(O&M)
Date of decision: 04.12.2025
Jatinderpal Singh ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Utkrant Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ,
BHARDWAJ J. (Oral)
The present first petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.15 dated 12.0 12.02.2025 registered under Sections 103, 190, 191(3), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25, 27, 27 54 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 12.02.2025, the deceased Nirmal Singh was going on a scooter and the complainant was following him in his car. It is the complainant's 's case that when they reached near the school in village Kalanaur at around 1:30 pm, Saroop Singh (son of Joginder Singh)), Jatinder Pal Singh (son of Jagir Singh and the petitioner herein), Amandeep Singh (son of Sukhwinder Singh) and Sonu alias Kala arrived in a Bolero car. It is also alleged that two persons, namely Agya Pal Singh (son of Ranbir Singh) and Lovepreet Singh alias Labha (son of Ranjit Singh), came on a Bullet Motorcycle; Gurmeet Singh (son of Avtar Singh), Ranbir Singh(son son of Jagir Singh) came on a Splend Splendor Motorcycle along with an unknown person. It is alleged that Lovepreet Singh alias Labha (son of Ranjit Singh) took out a pistol and fired at Nirmal Singh, as a result of which SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 225 CRM CRM-M-66933-2025(O&M) Nirmal Singh fell from his scooter in the fields fields. The complainant further alleged that he,, along with Palwinder Singh,, took Nirmal Singh to the Hospital, where he died. As per the complainant complainant, there was a prior dispute between the complainant and the accused regarding the construction of a path on the panchayat anchayat land.The accused persons caused obstructions and threatened to teach a lesson to the complainant.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and that he is stated to have been only present at the spot and that too without any weapon. He further contends that similarly placed co-accused, accused, namely, Sarup Singh (in CRM-M-38680--2025 titled as 'Sarup Singh Vs. State of Punjab'), Harmanjit Singh @ Sonu @ Harmanjeet Singh (in CRM RM-M-42774-2025 titled as 'Harmanjit Singh @ Sonu @ Harmanjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab'), Arshdeep Singh (in CRM-M-45298-2025 titled as 'Arshdeep Singh vs State of Punjab') and Ranbir Singh (in CRM-M-54405 54405-2025 titled as 'Ranbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab') have already been granted concession of regular bail vide common order dated 16.10.2025, the case of the petitioner would be very similar to thecase of the abovesaid co-accused, accused, to whom regular bail has been grantedby this Court.
4. State Counsel does not dispute that the case of the petitioner would be at par with the other co-accused to whom the concession of regular bail has been grantedby this Court vide order dated 16.10.2025, passed in the matter of Sarup Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (supra).
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN2025.12.05 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 225 CRM CRM-M-66933-2025(O&M)
6. In view of the facts noticed above and taking into consideration that similarly placed co-accused/Sarup Singh and others (supra) have already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 16.10.2025 passed in CRM--M-38680-2025; CRM-M-42774 42774-2025; CRM-M-45298-2025 & CRM-M-54405 54405-2025, thus with a view to extend parity and keeping the case of the present petitioner at par with co-accused, accused, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence inf any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.
9. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.
04.12.2025 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
Sumit Gusain JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2025.12.05 17:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document