Lovejeet Singh @ Labbu v. State Of Haryana
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26740-2026 Date of Decision: 03.07.2026 1.
CRM-M-26740-2026 Lovejeet Singh @ Labbu .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ......Respondent 2.
CRM-M-23972-2026 Gurpreet Singh alias Gaggu .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present:
Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate, and Ms. Sukriti Rai, Advocate, for the petitioner in CM-M-26740-2026.
Mr. Simranjit Singh Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-23972-2026.
Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (Oral).
Prayer in the present petitions, preferred by the petitioners under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short `the BNSS'), is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.217 dated 28.10.2025 under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 140(2), 351(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short `the BNS') and
(2) Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Guhla, District Kaithal.
2.
Status reports by way of affidavits of Ramesh Gulia, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guhla, and custody certificates (in both cases) filed by learned State counsel in Court, are taken on record.
3.
On the statement of one Gurcharan Singh alias Kala, the FIR in question was registered. The contents of the same are as under:- "Stated that I, the above named, am resident of abovementioned address and is in the business of Import Export. I had contested the election of Sarpanch in 2024. Earlier Kulwant Bajigar, MLA, Area Satrana had forcibly declared his brother Jagir Ram as Sarpanch. I did not accept the same, and got the same rejected from the High Court. High Court allowed me to fill nomination: Thereafter, MLA got registered FIR No. 224/24 against me at Police Station Patran. Thereafter, MLA Kulwant Bajigar got stood his candidate through his Uncle (Chacha/Taya). Due to threat of MLA's candidate in the election, they got poured acid into the Ballet Box and instigated riots. With regard to the said incident, FIR Nos.
225/24 and 224/24 were got registered against us at Police Station Patran. In the said regard, I have filed a case in the High Court, which is still pending. Today in the morning at around 8:00 AM, I and Angrez Ram son of Joginder Ram resident of Chichadwala, on my Scooty bearing No. PB11 BV-4158 had gone to Kharka to bring sand and gravel. After taking cement etc.
(3) back to our village, then ahead of Mata Gujri at KharkaChichadwala road, a white car came from the front, and hit my Scooty. We both fell from the Scooty. Four boys came out, from the vehicle. Of them, two were holding pistols, one was carrying a rod and one was carrying a sword. All the four boys pulled me into the vehicle; and Angrez Ram ran and called out the people. The two boys kept gun at my head and after making me sit in the car, tied my hands and eyes with a cloth. When I was made sit in the car; then at that point of time Harjinder son of Ramlal resident of Chichadwala on his Deluxe Motorcycle and Beera Ram, son of Marukhan Ram resident of Chichadwala on his motor cycle had come there while carrying out recce upon me. Then, four masked boys in the car brought me to the canal.
One of them, who had an iPhone, received a phone call and he stated that they are 3-4 Km away and that after reaching would inform after making video call. When they dropped me off at the Canal, then video call was received. Firstly, Gurmeet alias Vicky son of Kulwant Ram resident of Chichadwala spoke to me and asked me if I would upload a video against his father again. I told him that I have uploaded a video in the morning itself. He said to me that now I would no longer be able to upload videos. Then Harjeet son of Kulwant Ram Botra said "break both his legs and hands". Satpal, who is officer in BDO Office in Tehsil Patran said "I will see that my land is demarcated today."
(4) Kultan, today he will not be left in a position to make a video. In the end, Gurmeet alias Vicky said "if he compromises with us, then leave him otherwise, break both his legs and hands. Then the said boys, caught me from behind the pillar and one man caught my leg and one person hit my leg with rod and then after holding my another leg, hit the same with rod and broke the second leg as well. One of the men loaded the gun and then I screamed loudly and then, the people standing nearby came there. Seeing them, all the four boys ran away from the spot alongwith vehicle. When the said boys made a call to police, then police reached at the spot within 15-20 minutes. After reaching, the police untied my hands and legs and brought me to Government Hospital Narwana in an ambulance.
Gurmeet @ Vicky & Harjeet Ram sons of Kulwant Ram, Satpal son of Saru Ram, Hardeep son of Ajit, Kulwant son of Ghulam, after getting me kidnapped, tried to kill me. Strict legal action be taken against the above mentioned Gurmeet @ Vicky, Harjeet, Kulwant, Satpal, Hardeep & four unknown riders of the vehicle. I have got recorded my statement in Government Hospital Narwana, read it, understood it and the same is correct." 4.
The petitioners were arrested on 05.11.2025 and they have been in custody since then.
5.
Learned Senior counsel representing petitionerLovejeet Singh and learned counsel representing petitionerGurpreet Singh, have submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. It has been submitted that the complainant
(5) had named seven persons in the FIR and had attributed specific roles to them. It has been argued that the petitioners were not named anywhere in the FIR and it was only on 02.11.2025 that a supplementary statement was given by Angrej Singh, naming the petitioners. It has been argued that strangely enough, the Investigating Agency found all seven persons named in the FIR to be innocent and instead arraigned the petitioners and certain other persons as accused. It has been argued that merely on the basis of certain call detail records of the petitioners with one Sandeep Singh alias Soni Sandhu, the petitioners have been implicated.
It has been submitted that even otherwise, there was no demand of ransom neither was there any attempt to kill the complainant and even as per the case of the complainant, the accused who had kidnapped the complainant, themselves ran away when some people gathered and after sometime, the police also arrived. It has been submitted that the whole story is very improbable and that despite having clean antecedents, the petitioners have been implicated in the present case. It has been submitted that in any case, investigation has concluded and final report has been submitted. It has been contended that trial will take a sufficiently long time and keeping in view the peculiar facts as stated above, there would be no occasion to keep the petitioners in custody any longer.
6.
Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that the allegations are extremely serious and the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail. It has been argued that during investigation, it was found that the vehicle belonged to one
(6) Sandeep Singh @ Soni Sandhu and the petitioners had been arrested along with the said vehicle. It has been submitted that the call detail records show that the said Sandeep Singh @ Soni Sandhu, who is on the run, was in constant touch with the petitioners and other accused on the day of the incident and the location was near to the place of incident. It has been argued that under the circumstances, if the petitioners are released on bail, they may try to threaten or influence the witnesses and may also abscond.
7.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
8.
In the statement of complainant-Gurcharan Singh @ Kaka, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, specific names were given and specific roles were attributed. However, five days thereafter, a supplementary statement was given that with their own efforts, the complainant side had uncovered the perpetrators of the crime as a result of which, the petitioners were also implicated on the basis of some call records. This Court does not wish to comment anything further at this stage on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of the prosecution.
9.
The antecedents of the petitioners are clean and no other case is stated to have been registered against them. At least no such details have been given in the status report. 10.
It has also come on record that final report stands submitted on 02.02.2026 and the matter is now fixed for 14.08.2026 for consideration on charge. There is a list of 30
(7) witnesses, who are to be examined and, therefore, the trial will take a sufficiently long time to start and conclude. Besides that, the petitioners have been in custody since 05.11.2025 and almost eight months have elapsed since then.
11.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances as noticed in the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further custody of the petitioners is required. As to whether they were actually involved in the offence or not, shall be determined when the trial concludes.
12.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 03.07.2026 ds Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No