Ranjit Singh Alias Ranjit Kumar Alias Kaka v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 02.09.2025 Ranjit Singh @ Ranjit Kumar @ Kaka ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG Punjab **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of concession of bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of the Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Ranjit Singh @ Ranjit Kumar @ Kaka 23.09.2024 103 (1), 191 (3), 190, 61

(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act, wherein during the course of investigatio n Section 238 of BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act has been registered Bhogpur Jalandhar Rural

 2.

Status report by way of an affidavit of Kulwant Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Adampur, District Jalandhar (Rural) on behalf of respondent i.e. State of Punjab, has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record.

3.

Facts which have been narrated in para 3 of the bail petition in chronological order are also noticed and recorded hereunder:- (i) FIR in question has been registered on 23.09.2024 on the statement of Navjot Singh who happens to be elder brother of Jaspal Singhdeceased in question. (ii) Complainant has alleged that on the night of 22.09.2024 at 11 PM, his brother's friend namely Simranjeet has made telephonic call to him and has apprised that his brother is lying on the road as he has suffered bullet injuries on his head and ear. (iii) Thereafter, complainant and his father Harjeet Singh reached at spot and took his brother to Civil hospital KALA BAKRA in ambulance wherein, he was declared brought dead. (iv) Therein, complainant took names of Gurjeet Singh alias Gurji, Ravi Kumar, Gurpreet Singh, Amrik Singh. Babbu, Sunny as the said persons have killed his brother on account of FIR was registered against these 6 persons.

(v) On 29.09.2024, Gurjeet Singh alias Gurji and Ravi Kumar made a disclosure statement on the basis of which 2 unloaded guns were recovered.

 (vi) On 20.10.2024, complainant-Navjot Singh supplementary statement to the police that Arun Kumar alias AADHU is the main accused for killing my brother.

(vii) On 21.10.2024, said Arun Kumar was arrested and he discloses about the role and motive for killing victim-deceased in question along with his accomplices i.e. Mandeep Kumar alias Manni and Manjit Singh alias Moti.

(viii) On 22.10.2024 Arun Kumar again made disclosure statement that the pistol with which I and Mandeep Kumar have given bullet injuries was bought from Ranjit Kumar (present petitioner). (ix) Whereafter on the basis of statement of abovementioned accusedArun Kumar; Sauravdeep Singh, Ranjit Kumar (petitioner), Mandeep Singh alias Mani and Manjit Singh alias Moti were nominated as an accused.

(x) On 22.10.2024, petitioner-Ranjit Singh was arrested and thereafter, his disclosure was recorded wherein he discloses about running a juice shop and on account of his acquaintance with Arum Kumar, he took him along with his accomplices to Bihar and after enquiring, bought him a pistol and he also discloses that he bought 2 more pistols which on the basis of disclosure was recovered by police in unloaded condition.

(xi) On 11.12.2024, complainant again made a supplementary statement on the basis of which Amrik Singh, Babbu alias Mandeep Gill and Sunny were declared innocent.

 (x) Thereafter, Challan was presented on 16.01.2025 and Charges were framed on 19.02.2025 and 26 witnesses have been cited by prosecution out of which not even one has been examined. (xi) The case is now fixed for 22.05.2025 before the Learned Trial Court."

4.

Learned counsel for petitioner argues that since there are no allegations suggesting that petitioner had any motive or grudge against the deceased Jaspal or the complainant Navjot Singh and also there is no assertion that petitioner was present on the spot or was accompanying any of the accused. Thus, petitioner cannot be alleged to be directly or indirectly involved in the commission of murder of Jaspal Singh because his role is limited i.e. of arranging of 03 pistols from the State of Bihar and one of them was sold out to Arun Kumar and Mandeep Singh for sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. Further, he refers to para 34 (A) of the status report wherein the role played by the petitioner in the incident in question is described and the same is reproduced hereunder for reference:- "The petitioner was not named in the FIR initially.

However, during investigation, his role surfaced through disclosure statements of coaccused Arun Kumar. It was revealed that the petitioner, who runs a juice cart in Bhogpur and hails from the State of Bihar, had developed acquaintance with Arun Kumar and Mandeep Kumar @ Mani. About 3-4 months prior to the occurrence, he was specifically approached by them to arrange firearms for eliminating deceased Jaspal Singh.

 concealed in the storage section of his bed. Thus, the petitioner's role is not of a mere bystander but of an active conspirator who facilitated the supply of lethal weapons with prior knowledge that the same would be used to eliminate the deceased." 5.

Further, counsel states that petitioner is stated to be suffering incarceration since 02.10.2024 and out of 26 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined and thus, submits that even pace of the trial is very slow. 6.

Learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is involved in serious offence of murder and it is the petitioner who supplied the pistols in question to the main accused with which the murder has been caused, therefore, without extending any leniency to the petitioner, his plea for bail be dismissed. 7.

This Court has heard the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and has carefully perused the record placed before it. It is noticed that the petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2024 and whether petitioner is involved in the incident directly or indirectly, except of arranging all the pistols from the State of Bihar, is a matter that would require thorough adjudication during the course of trial and culmination of trial is likely to take considerable amount of time, as out of 26 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. Therefore, personal liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period of time.

8.

In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety

 bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 9.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

10.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

11.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 02.09.2025 NainaRajput Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO