Komaldeep Singh Alias Komal v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-17440-2026 -1- 







  
 


 



!

"#$#%&
'

(
)*#+,
 




 




 
   
 &

 -.
 /0
 /
/
 
 


 

  


 


!
"!

  
 
# 
 
$$$

/
 ,

1 .2&
%

 
 


  

 
 
 
&'(


" )
*  !
!
 
+,+(
-

."*

/0
)

 
!

 

 
 




12
*
334

,5,'+,+&



 
  
3,6
(-70
 
53-+0

" )
*))

 
+,+(
-

."* /0

 

"  
8  


 



: ;

;
*
',5,

+,+7

  




,6,&+,+7 +




  

,&,'+,+&

!



  
; 
<

=



 


 
 
#


 

 
)





%







 
 
=
!

 
%
 
=

 ,','+,+&
 )




 

 

 

CRM-M-17440-2026 -2-  

(
2

 
)
 
 


 



 )
  

 

9


)


 


,3
)

,'
 
%
 


#=




 
);= 
!







>


%
 


#=






 
 )
  

 


 
 
; 



?

);= 
!




  

 


 


 
 
 



 
<
 
#



 

!



 


 


 

 
@;+
!




 
 




 

 

= 
 


 


 
? 
)
  
)
 

)



 





 

!

 
%
 
= 
!
  
 

 


  = 

)


>


*

 
=


)


 

)
 )
2


 


 


= &
* 

 
7
< 

 

 
 


 


 

 
)
  
2

 
)



 


 
)

 

  
)



 

 



 
 


  
 






2

= 
  
)



 


 
);

= 
!




  

 

 


CRM-M-17440-2026 -3- 
 
 
% 










= 5
This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7.

So far as the question of maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier petition are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed.

8.

The previous petition as filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by this Court on 09.04.2025. Now the complainant and eye-witness Sukhdev have been examined. Copies of their sworn depositions have been placed on record. A perusal of testimony of Sukhdev Singh reveals that he did not even identify the petitioner as one of the persons who were present at the spot along with the assailants. Even the complainant has not attributed any specific overt act to the petitioner and as per his testimony, it was the accused Karam Singh @ Karma, who had caught hold of him and then accused Laadi had sprinkled petrol over him and whereas accused Gabbar had ignited a lighter thereby burning him. The petitioner is in custody since 11.08.2024.

CRM-M-17440-2026 -4It is well settled principle that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since the settled principle of law is that detention prior to trial should not become punitive. There are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near future. The continued detention of the petitioner is not going to serve any useful purpose. Taking into consideration the nature of the evidence that has come on record in the form of testimonies of material witnesses, the part attributed to the petitioner and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail  

 




 A)
 


  


 
 
:A: 
B



A
8)


   6
2

  

 










> 





 


 3,







)
  

 

  


 ) 
 

 














3/
 4


 
'

(
)*#+,