Mani Singh Alias Machhar Singh v. State Of Punjab
-1233+251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Mani Singh @ Machhar Singh ..... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent Satwinder Singh @ Heero Dhillon .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent Date of decision: 10.12.2025 CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-42221-2025.
Mr. Rehat Bir Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-60836-2025.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate for the complainant.
**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.
By this order, I dispose of the above mentioned two petitions arising out of the same FIR.
2.
Both the petitions have been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR No.233, dated 15.11.2023, under Sections 302, 148, 149, 201of IPC and Sections 25, 27
-2of Arms Act, registered at Police Station City South Moga, District Moga, Punjab.
3.
Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Jagdish Kumar son of Lahori Ram. It was alleged that on 14.11.2023, son of the complainant, namely, Vikas Jindal (deceased) and his nephew, namely, Sahil Jindal @ Laddi went to the market at around 07:30 P.M. in the car. It was alleged that the complainant followed them on his scooter with his nephw, namely, Gagandeep Jindal and when they reached near Ara Road, Pathian Wali Mandi, Moga, then they met Veer Singh @ Mithu, Heero Dhillon, i.e. Satwinder Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-60836-2025), who were armed with illegal weapons and they were accompanied by Mani @ Machhar (petitioner in CRM-M-42221-2025), Tidi, Lucky and 5-7 other unknown persons. All these persons stopped the car of his son and nephew.
They threatened them for the reason that they had earlier filed a case against our friends. Thus, Veer Singh took a gun from his friend, namely, Heero Dhillon, (petitioner in CRM-M-60836-2025) and started firing at the son of complainant, namely, Vikas Jindal with intention to kill him. His son was hit on right ribs and he collapsed. Then, Lucky, Tiddi, Mani @ Machhar (petitioner in CRM-M-42221-2025) extorted Veer Singh to fire more shots. On raising alarm, all of them escaped from the scene of occurrence. The complainant shifted his son, Vikas Jindal to Civil Hospital, Moga where he was declared dead. Thus, the request was made to take legal action against the culprits. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted.
-3Both the petitioners were arrested on 15.11.2023. on completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. Both the petitioners approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga praying for the grant of bail. However after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga declined the bail applications filed by both the petitioners vide orders dated 29.05.2024 and 24.05.2024, respectively. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, namely, Satwinder Singh @ Heero Dhillon (in CRM-M-60836-2025) earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-48526-2024 praying for the grant of bail, however the same was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 16.12.2024. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court by way of filing the present petitions praying for the grant of regular bail. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have submitted that the allegations regarding the fatal injury is attributed to the co-accused, however the petitioners have been alleged to be the part of unlawful assembly. They have submitted that the complainant is a planted eye-witness and he was not present at the time of occurrence. They have submitted that the deceased himself was facing prosecution in 13 cases. They have submitted that due to the criminal background of the deceased, Vikas Jindal, he was having enmity with many people and thus has been killed by someone else but the case has been planted upon the petitioners. They have submitted that though the petitioners are involved in other cases also, however they are on bail in
-4those cases. They have submitted that the complainant has already been examined and thus, no possibility of influencing. They have submitted that the petitioners are behind bars since the date of their arrest, i.e. 15.11.2023, however there is no material progress in the trial. They have submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioners deserve to be granted bail.
5.
Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He has submitted that both the parties were at loggerheads since beginning and both the petitioners along with the co-accused in a premeditated manner had eliminated the son of complainant. He has submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders and thus, they do not deserve the concession of bail. 6.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State however has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsels for the petitioners. He has submitted that the petitioners were duly armed and they have played an active role in the commission of offence. He has submitted that only 02 witnesses have been examined, out of total 19 prosecution witnesses. He has further submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders. He has produced custody certificates of both the petitioners today in the Court, which are taken on record. 7.
The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 8.
On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 14.11.2023. The petitioners are behind bars since 15.11.2023.
-5The fatal injury was attributed to the co-accused. The petitioners were allegedly the part of unlawful assembly. It has also been argued before this Court that the deceased was involved in 13 cases. Custody certificates produced would show that the petitioners have suffered incarceration of 02 years and 21 days as on 09.12.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner, namely, Mani Singh @ Machhar Singh (in CRM-M-422212025) is involved in 02 more cases, however in 01 case, he has been convicted and his sentence has already been completed, whereas the petitioner, namely, Satwinder Singh @ Heero Dhillon (in CRM-M-608362025) is involved in 01 more case, however he is on bail in that case. Only 02 witnesses have been examined, out of total 19 prosecution witnesses. 9.
The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court.
10.
This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsels for the petitioners succeed in making out a case for the grant of bail.
11.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and the petitioners, namely, Mani Singh @ Machhar Singh and Satwinder Singh @ Heero Dhillon are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. However, if the petitioner, namely,
-6Mani Singh @ Machhar Singh (in CRM-M-42221-2025) does not furnish the bail bonds within seven days from today, then his further custody period after one week will not be counted in this case. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 10.12.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No