Harpal Singh Alias Bhalla v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 02.09.2025 HARPAL SINGH @ BHALLA .... PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present :

Mr.Rajender Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.17 dated 02.03.2021, under Sections 302/397/34 of IPC (Sections 328, 201 and 120-B of IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that co-accused Neha Rani, whose case is on same footing, has already been granted bail by this Court in CRM-M-5780-2022 vide order dated 21.07.2022. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no iota of evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. He is in custody since 05.05.2023. The investigation of this case is complete. Nothing is to be recovered from him. Trial will take sufficient time to conclude and therefore, he prayed for regular bail 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab, accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of

-2regular bail to the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is involved in another case under the NDPS Act except the present one. 5.

Status report as well as custody certificate of the petitioner filed by learned State counsel is taken on record.

6.

As per the status report, the petitioner in connivance with the co-accused, entered into a criminal conspiracy, committed theft of ₹9 lakhs from Inderjit Singh @ Premi and thereafter committed his murder. 7.

Heard.

8.

As per prosecution allegations, petitioner along with his wife Neha Bhalla and his brother Rachhpal Singh hatched a conspiracy and robbed Rs.9 lakhs from Inderjit Singh (since deceased) and thereafter committed his murder. Prosecution witness Balwinder Singh had seen the deceased Inderjit Singh in the company of petitioner in a truck, wherein they were taking liquor together and having edible items in his truck at Mullanpur on 01.03.2021 at about 10.00 p.m. The present case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is well settled proposition of law that gravity of allegation is one of an important circumstance to be considered at the time of grant/rejection of bail to an accused. Antecedents of petitioner are not clean as he is also involved in FIR No.25 dated 14.04.2023 under Sections 18-C and 25 of NDPS Act, Police Station Chohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran.

9.

Keeping in view the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

-310.

It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 02.09. 2025 anju Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No