Angrej Singh @ Lakha Fauji v. State Of Punjab

-:1:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (219) Date of Decision:02.07.2026 ANGREJ SINGH @ LAKHA FAUJI ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.-

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate with Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing). Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. G.K. Mann, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shruti, Advocate for the complainant.

-.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1.

The petitioner has preferred the present, being the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the extraordinary concession of regular bail in connection with FIR No.40 dated 20.02.2026 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 108 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 306 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar.

2.

The facts giving rise to the present petition are that, on 20.02.2026, while SI Agyapal Singh, SHO, Police Station Ajnala, along

-:2:- with other members of the police party, was present at Main Chowk, Ajnala, complainant Rajbir Singh lodged a statement alleging that his maternal uncle, Pritam Singh, who was embroiled in a property dispute with his elder brother Angrej Singh @ Lakha (the present applicant), had been subjected to persistent harassment in connection with the partition of their ancestral property. It was further alleged that, shortly before the incident, Pritam Singh circulated a video message through WhatsApp naming the applicant and certain other persons, alleging that their continuous harassment had compelled him to take the extreme step of ending his life. Upon receiving the said video, the complainant and his brother rushed to the residence of Pritam Singh and found him lying unconscious.

He was immediately shifted to Civil Hospital, Ajnala, and thereafter referred to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, where he was declared brought dead. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered. The applicant-accused was arrested on 21.02.2026 and has since remained in judicial custody. He has now approached this Court by way of the present petition seeking the concession of regular bail. 3.

Learned State counsel has placed on record the custody certificate of the applicant-accused, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

3.1.

Learned State counsel, duly assisted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the present petition. It is contended that the allegations against the applicantaccused pertain to the commission of a grave and heinous offence, and, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. It is further

-:3:- submitted that, in the event of his release, there exists a reasonable apprehension that the applicant-accused may attempt to influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses, tamper with the prosecution evidence, or evade the due process of law by absconding, thereby adversely affecting the fair conduct of the trial. On these premises, it is prayed that the present application seeking the concession of regular bail be dismissed.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper-book, the custody certificate, and the material placed on record with their able assistance.

5.

Upon a prima facie consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, this Court finds that the applicant-accused has remained in judicial custody since 21.02.2026. The investigation, insofar as the applicant is concerned, stands concluded and the final report (challan) has already been presented before the competent Court. Consequently, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is warranted for the purposes of investigation. Learned counsel for the applicant has, however, strenuously contended that the foundational ingredients necessary to constitute an offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023, are conspicuously absent, inasmuch as the essential element of mens rea is not discernible from the allegations levelled against him. It has further been urged that the gravamen of the prosecution case merely pertains to a property dispute arising out of the applicant's alleged failure to vacate a residential house,

-:4:- which, according to the prosecution, had fallen to the share of the deceased pursuant to a family settlement. Be that as it may, this Court consciously refrains from recording any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the aforesaid submissions, as any such observation at this interlocutory stage may have the potential of prejudicing the rights and contentions of either party during the course of trial.

5.1.

At this stage, it would suffice to observe that the allegations and the evidentiary value of the material collected by the prosecution are matters which shall be adjudicated upon by the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of trial. Since the investigation has attained finality and the challan has already been filed, the continued incarceration of the applicant would not advance the cause of investigation. Moreover, having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the normal pace of criminal trials, there appears to be no immediate likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. Prolonged pre-trial detention, in such circumstances, would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to punitive incarceration before adjudication of guilt. 5.2.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition, the same is allowed. The applicant-accused is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and subject further to the following conditions:-

-:5:- 1.

The applicant-accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.

2.

The applicant-accused shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall he attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

3.

The applicant-accused shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

4.

The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the applicant-accused his permanent residential address as well as his present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5.

The applicant-accused shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, his Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of his immovable

-:6:- properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6.

The applicant-accused shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in his residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

7.

The applicant-accused shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.

6.

Since the principal matter stands finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of in terms of the present order. No further or separate directions are required to be passed in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 02.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No