Kashmir Singh v. State Of Punjab

He submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name was subsequently added on 20.12.2025 through a

supplementary statement of complainant Atish Kumar, after about 9 days of the occurrence. He further submits that the case is of version and cross-version and DDR No.3 dated 15.12.2025 had already been lodged against the complainant party, wherein the complainant himself is an accused, and the petitioner has been implicated as a counterblast thereto. It is further contended that the allegations of firing are attributed only to coaccused Arshdeep Singh and Karanbir Singh and no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner.

The status report has already been filed by the learned State counsel, who, relying upon the same, has vehemently opposed the petitioner's prayer for bail. It is submitted that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner Kashmir Singh was an active participant of the unlawful assembly and, along with co-accused, fired upon the complainant party, resulting in the death of Ajaypal Singh. He further submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named by the complainant in the supplementary statement recorded before the Investigating Officer. Learned State counsel contends that the allegations against the petitioner are supported by the post-mortem report and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for proper investigation. It is also contended that in case of release on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the prosecution

evidence and hamper the investigation. On these grounds, the learned State counsel has prayed for dismissal of the present petition. 5.