Gurmit Singh @ Gurmeet Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.229 Case No. : CRM-M-24934-2025 Decided On : August 25, 2025 Gurmit Singh @ Gurmeet Singh ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Punjab ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vishal Sharda, Advocate for the complainant.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.96 dated 29.11.2024, under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station Government Railway Police (GRP), Jalandhar, District Jalandhar. Briefly, the case in hand was registered on the statement made by one Parshant Gupta, whose father committed suicide by jumping before a running train on 28.11.2024. The reason behind his suicide was alleged to be harrassment at the hands of the petitioner, who forcibly occupied his six kanals of land, regarding which the petitioner was requested many times by father of the complainant but he paid no attention and rather insulted him.
Even a day prior to the incident, the complainant was told by his father that he met the petitioner and demanded his land back but the petitioner insulted and abused him and also said that he was not even dying. On this, his father got much disturbed and decided to end his life. On this statement, the FIR in question was registered.
Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He never encroached upon the land of the complainant or his father. In fact, the deceased wanted to take forcible possession of the land of the petitioner's side. The six kanals land, which was the subject matter of the issue in hand, was purchased by the petitioner from one Piare Lal on 01.07.1986 and that land was not pertaining to the complainant or his father. There is no evidence that the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel further urged that trial of the case is likely to take time and therefore, the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail.
Status Report dated 25.08.2025 and Custody Certificate dated 23.08.2025, filed today in Court, are taken on record. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition while contending that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of forcibly occupying the land of the complainant and threatening and harassing him, due to which, he committed suicide. So, he does not deserve the concession of bail and the present petition be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.
As per the record of the case, the petitioner allegedly caused
harassment to the deceased by illegally encroaching upon his land, which compelled him to take the extreme step of ending his life by jumping before a running train.
As per the Status Report, petitioner is alleged to be in illegal possession of land of deceased since the year 2021. So, the close proximity of time is badly missing in this case. There is nothing on record that petitioner instigated or in any manner abetted the suicide by deceased. The petitioner is an old man of about 75 years and as per the Custody Certificate dated 23.08.2025, filed today in Court, the petitioner has already undergone custody of 06 months and 20 days. Trial of the case is going on, conclusion whereof is likely to take considerable time. So, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars. No other criminal case is reported to be registered against the accused. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
August 25, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.