Karandeep Singh Alias Karan Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.310 Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 KARANDEEP SINGH ALIAS KARAN SINGH

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Malkiat S. Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. N.S. Mahal, DAG, Punjab.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 312, dated 04.12.2023, under Sections 302, 452, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Section 307 of IPC (added later on) and Sections 103(1), 333, 115(2), 351(2)(3), 191(3), 190 and 109 of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural. 2.

As per the case of the prosecution, the FIR was registered on the allegations that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons, armed with deadly weapons, forcibly entered the house of the complainant's relatives and caused injuries to the inmates. It is alleged that multiple accused persons inflicted injuries upon Kuldeep Singh and other family members with their respective weapons. During the course of the occurrence, several persons sustained injuries and later Kuldeep Singh succumbed to the injuries, whereupon offences under Sections 302, 307 and

324 of IPC were added. The occurrence is stated to have arisen out of previous enmity and the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR as one of the assailants who participated in the incident. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking concession of anticipatory bail.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that challan was presented against the co-accused and they faced trial for the offences including under Section 302 IPC. It is further argued that the case was thereafter fixed for prosecution evidence, however, none of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and the material witnesses have already turned hostile. It is submitted that since the witnesses have not identified the accused persons and have not supported the prosecution case, nothing substantial remains against the petitioner and, therefore, he deserves to be released on anticipatory bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted the status report and opposed the present petition. It is contended that the petitioner is yet to be arrested and has not joined the investigation till date. It is further submitted that although some of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, the same is only qua the accused persons who faced the trial, and the supplementary challan against the present petitioner is yet to be presented. It is argued that the petitioner has deliberately avoided joining investigation and his custodial interrogation is still required. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The fact remains that the petitioner has not joined the

investigation till date and is evading arrest. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding hostility of the witnesses cannot be considered at this stage in his favour, as the said evidence pertains to the accused who have already faced trial and cannot be read in favour of the present petitioner, who has not yet joined the investigation. The investigation qua the petitioner is still pending and supplementary challan is yet to be filed. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 7.

However, it is clarified that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 8.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 20.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No