Inderjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1219-3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.02.2026 Inderjit Singh ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Ms. G. K. Mann, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anmol Jeevan Singh Gill, Advocate;

Ms. Shruti, Advocate and Ms. Chandrika, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. S. P. S. Aulakh, Advocate for the complainant. ***** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0130, dated 27.06.2024, under Section 302, 307, 447, 511, 148, 149, 120-B, 411, 201 of IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act (Sections 411, 201 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural. 2.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Nirmal Singh @ Nimma. It was alleged that their forefather earlier exchanged 5 kanals land with adjoining cultivator which is of retired Inspector Inderjit Singh (Petitioner) and both the parties were cultivating their lands. It was alleged that on 27.6.2024 at about 3.30 PM complainant alongwith his brother Gurpreet Singh, father Gurbachan Singh was in their fields and his nephew

-2was also in the fields and were irrigating the land. In the meantime, Inderjit Singh came on his Activa accompanied by 10-12 persons, who were in the cars make Swift and Honda City, namely, Satnam Singh, Harbhej Singh @ Veeru, Charanjit Singh @ Mannu, Shamsher Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Bagicha Singh, Surjit Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Mahinder Singh and 5-7 unknown persons. Some of them were armed with 12 bore double barrel rifles, some with 315 bore rifle and others were armed with revolvers and pistols. They all started raising dispute regarding 5 kanals of land. Inderjit Singh (petitioner) raised lalkara and Shamsher Singh destroyed the crop with his tractor sown by the complainant.

Thereafter, when the complainant party tried to stop them, the accused started firing from their weapons, due to which, the complainant, his brother Gurpreet Singh, nephew Beant Singh, Jagtar Singh, Baljit Singh, Mangal Singh and his father Gurbachan Singh suffered bullet/fire shot injuries and thereafter, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence along with their respective weapons. The injured were shifted to Amandeep Hospital, however, Gurpreet Singh and Beant Singh succumbed to their injuries. Thus, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On the basis of the same, the FIR was registered. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2024. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced.

The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar praying for the grant of regular bail.

-3dated 20.05.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the petitioner was only present at the spot of occurrence and raised the lalkara only to destroy the crop. He has submitted that the petitioner did not instigate or participate in any act of violence at the time of incident. He has submitted that the petitioner was the cultivating owner in possession of the land and the complainant has nothing to show that even this land was exchanged. He has submitted that the petitioner was not armed with any weapon. He has submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and 70 years of age and he is in custody since 27.06.2024, however, there is no material progress in the trial. He has further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case. He has thus submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4.

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the same and has submitted that the petitioner had played an ative role in the commission of offence and thus, no ground for the grant of bail to the petitioner is made out and thus the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner was the member of unlawful assembly and it was a pre-planned attack to take the possession of the land from the complainant. He has further submitted that the petitioner raised the lalkara and then entered into

-4the land of the complainant to destroy the crops. He has submitted that in the present case, two persons have lost their lives and 05 other persons have suffered bullet/fire shot injuries. He, on instructions, has submitted that the petitioner is involved in one more case. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record. 6.

Heard.

7.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 27.06.2024. The petitioner was the member of unlawful assembly and it was a pre-planned attack to take the possession of the land from the complainant. The petitioner raised the lalkara and thereafter, entered into the land of the complainant to destroy the crops. In the present case, two persons i.e. Gurpreet Singh and Beant Singh have lost their lives and 05 other persons have suffered bullet/fire shot injuries. The petitioner is involved in one more case. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. 8.

Keeping in view the above said position, this Court does not find any ground to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, the present petition stands dismissed.

9.

Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 17.02.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No