Dilbagh Singh @ Bagu v. State Of Punjab

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.14806 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.05.2026 Dilbagh Singh @ Bagu ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr. Ranbir Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kuljinder Dhindsa, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh, Advocate for the complainant.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1.

Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present third petition praying for granting him regular bail in case FIR No.130 dated 27.06.2024, under Sections 302, 307, 447, 511, 148, 149, 120-B of IPC (Sections 411 and 201 IPC added lateron) and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar. 2.

Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Nirmal Singh @ Nimma. It was alleged that forefather of the complainant party earlier exchanged 5 kanals land with adjoining cultivator now represented through Inspector Inderjit Singh retired. It was alleged that under that

exchange arrangement both the parties were cultivating their lands. It was alleged that on 27.6.2024 at about 3.30 PM, complainant alongwith his brother, namely, Gurpreet Singh and father, namely, Gurbachan Singh was in their fields. In the meantime, Inderjit Singh came on his Activa accompanied by his companions in two 04 wheelers, came there. Many of them were having double barrel rifles in their hands. Some were having 15 bore rifles. Some were having revolvers, some were having pistols etc. It was alleged that they all started raising dispute regarding 5 kanals of land. It was alleged that though respectables of the Village tried to reconcile the matter, however, Inderjit Singh raised lalkara and entered into land of complainant side to destroy the crop sown by the complainant.

Since the land was under cultivation and possession of the complainant, so complainant side went into field to save their sown crop. It was alleged that accused started firing from their weapons due to which complainant, his brother, nephew and his father suffered bullet shot injuries. On this, the accused persons fled away from the spot along with their respective weapons. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the culprits. The FIR was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and he was also arrayed as an accused in the present case. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 11.07.2024. He approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, praying for grant of regular bail.

However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 19.12.2024.

approached this Court twice by way of filing CRM-M-10127-2025 and CRM-M-31306-2025, however, the same were dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn vide orders dated 27.02.2025 and 17.02.2026, respectively. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present third petition praying for grant of regular bail. 3.

It has been vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in this case. He has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the present case and he was nominated later on only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which is not even an admissible evidence. He submits that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner nor there is any specific allegation qua the petitioner. He submits that the present FIR is the outcome of some dispute over land, which is purely civil in nature, which has been given a colour of criminal nature. He has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest, however, charges are yet to be framed and out of total 52 prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been examined so far. He has further submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and thus, in the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner was part of an unlawful assembly who duly participated in the occurrence. He submits that the petitioner along with other co-accused had come to the fields when the complainant, his brother, his nephew and his father were watering the paddy crops sown in the fields. He submits

that all the accused persons started altercation with them and threatened them. All were carrying deadly weapons along with them and also fired upon the complainant's party with intention to kill them. He submits that in the said occurrence, complainant and his father suffered grievous injuries and brother and nephew of the complainant, had been shot dead, due to the firearm injury. He thus, submits that no case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is made out.

5.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner that he, in connivance with other co-accused, has actively participated in the occurrence. He submits that it is a group crime in which murder has been committed. He submits that firing has been made blindly on a group of persons without bothering its consequences in the name of taking possession of the land. He has submitted that earlier also the petitioner has approached this Court twice by way of filing of CRMM-10127-2025 and CRM-M-31306-2025, however, the same were dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn vide orders dated 27.02.2025 and 17.02.2026, respectively. He, on instructions, has submitted that challan has been presented and out of 52 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined till date. He thus, has submitted that no case for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner is made out and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

6.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that there are serious allegations against the

petitioner being the member of an unlawful assembly. Petitioner along with co-accused, who were armed with deadly weapons, with an intention to kill, fired blindly on a group of persons in which brother and nephew of the complainant were shot dead and other members of complainant party including the complainant suffered injuries. Offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature as two persons have lost their lives. Custody certificate filed by the State shows that the petitioner has undergone incarceration of 01 year, 09 months and 28 days as on 30.04.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in 02 more cases. As submitted, charges are yet to be presented and out of 52 prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been examined till date. 7.

Keeping in view the above said position, this Court does not find any ground to release the petitioner on bail, at this stage. Petition stands dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 01.05.2026 JUDGE ps-I Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No