Ravinder Singh Alias Lallo v. State Of Punjab
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 23.04.2026 Date of uploading : 23.04.2026 Ravinder Singh @ Lallo .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:
Mr. Ritesh Pandey, --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.131 dated 08.11.2025 under Sections 109, 190, 191(3) of BNS, Sections 125, 125(a), 61(2) of BNS added later on and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act, Section 29-A of Arms Act added later on, registered at Police Station Rangar Nangal, Batala. 2.
The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- "Statement of Harwinder Singh, son of Harjinder Singh, resident of Jaitosarja, aged about 24 years, phone number 98556-06673. Stated that I am a resident of the aforesaid address and work as a labourer. Today, I had gone to village Rangilpur with my father for labour work. From there, my father and I went to Batala in connection with our work. When we were returning from Batala to our village Jaitosarja, at around 02:30 PM near village Chuhewal, we were met by Manga son of Kala, resident of Chuhewal, and Akash son of unknown, on a Splendor motorcycle.
-2Upon seeing us, they followed us on their motorcycle to village Jaitosarja. We stopped at the Jaitosarja bus stop and started buying groceries for home from a shop.
In the meantime, Manga son of Kala and Akash son of unknown, seeing us standing in front of the shop, went back towards the school side. After some time, the aforesaid Manga and Akash, along with two other unidentified clean-shaven youths, came riding on two motorcycles and, while abusing us, got into a scuffle. During the scuffle, the aforesaid Manga took out a pistol from his right waistband and fired two shots. One shot hit me below my left knee. Meanwhile, a youth from my village, Pritam Singh son of Amarjit Singh, who had arrived in a minibus from the Batala side, was alighting from the bus to go home, when Manga fired another shot which hit Pritam Singh, who was crossing the road, in the calf of his right leg.
Upon the commotion, people gathered, and the aforesaid four individuals abandoned one motorcycle there and fled from the spot on the other motorcycle. This entire incident was witnessed by my father, Harjinder Singh son of Dalip Singh. The reason for the enmity is that Manga son of Kala, resident of Chuhewal, comes from his village and sells narcotics in front of our house, and we had stopped them from selling narcotics. Due to this enmity, the aforesaid persons have carried out a murderous assault on me. In this entire incident, Ravinder Singh alias Lallo son of Santokh Singh and Surjit Singh alias Punna son of Santokh Singh, residents of Jaitosarja, are involved.
The aforesaid Ravinder Singh alias Lallo instigated his sister-in-law's son, Manga son of Kala, resident of Chuhewal, to attack me, due to which I and Pritam Singh son of Amarjit Singh of my village have been injured by gunshots. Requisite legal action be taken against the aforesaid persons. Statement has been dictated, heard, and is correct. Sd/- Harwinder Singh. Attested: Harjinder Singh. Verified: Sd/- Avtar Singh, ASI, Police Station Rangar Nangal, Dated: 0811-2025." 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the petitioner is involved in the FIR in question on account of his being an active conspirator, but no specific role is attributed to him, and the petitioner is not alleged to be present at the spot where the incident took place. Learned counsel has further argued that a somewhat similarly placed co-accused, namely Surjit Singh, has been afforded the concession of anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, which order has not been challenged till date by the State/complainant before any Court concerned. Learned counsel has
-3further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 5 months. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4.
Learned State counsel has filed short reply by way of affidavit dated 21.04.2026 in Court today. The same be kept on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 22.04.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6.
The petitioner was arrested on 01.12.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 05.02.2026. Total 29 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
-46.1 As per custody certificate dated 22.04.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 5 months and 12 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.
In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9.
Ordered accordingly.
10.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
-5opinion on the merits of the case.
11.
(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 23.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No