Tejveer Singh @ Prince @ Tejvir Singh Gill v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Tejveer Singh @ Prince @ Tejvir Singh Gill ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent 1.
The date when the judgment is reserved 18.11.2025 2.
The date when the judgment is pronounced 28.11.2025 3.
The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 29.11.2025 4.
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5.
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:
Mr. Karandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
*** MANISHA BATRA , J.
1.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short "BNSS") seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-
-2FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 17.08.2024 Lakho Ke Behram, District Ferozepur 103(1), 109, 118(1), 118(2), 190 and 191 (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 2.
Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Satnam Singh alleging that on the evening of 17.08.2024, he along with his father Tarsem Singh was present in his house and on hearing some noises coming from the house of Manga Singh, nephew of his father, they had gone there and found Akash, Binder Kaur, Lakshdeep Singh, Aman Kaur, Sukhpreet Kaur and Badal alias Anshu while quarreling with Manga Singh. His father along with some other persons present on the spot tried to intervene but to no avail.
Within the sight of the complainant, accused Akash made an exhortation and then accused Badal @ Anshu took out a kirch and struck blows with the same on the person of his father, Sahab Singh and Sukdev Singh who were present there. His father immediately succumbed to his injuries. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Postmortem examination of dead body of the victim was conducted. The complainant recorded his supplementary statement on 18.08.2024 to the effect that the present petitioner had struck a blow with kirch on the person of his father. The petitioner was nominated as an accused and was arrested on the same day. The accused Lakshdeep Singh was also arrested subsequently.
Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences. 3.
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
-3been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of supplementary statement of complainant recorded one day after the incident after making due deliberations and concoctions. A false recovery of kirch has been planted upon him. It is a case of version and cross version since a cross GD has been registered against the members of the complainant party. The material witnesses namely, Sukhdev Singh, Manga @ Mangal Singh, Sahib Singh, Satnam Singh and Dharampreet Singh have been examined and have not supported the prosecution version. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No motive has been attributed to the petitioner. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The co-accused Binder Kaur and Lakshdeep Singh have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4.
Per contra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner who had given two blows with kirch on the back of injured Sukhdev Singh and one blow on the left side of waist of the victim Tarsem Singh. The trial is going on at a proper pace. There are chances of petitioner's committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged that he does not deserve to be released on bail.
5.
This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6.
The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly along with the co-accused and on the fateful day in prosecution of common object of that unlawful assembly is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the victims Sukhdev
-4Singh and Sahib Singh and is further alleged to have caused death of victim Tarsem Singh. The complainant, victim Sukhdev Singh, Sahib Singh and eye-witnesses Dharampreet Singh and Manga have, however, turned hostile before the learned trial Court and are shown to have resiled from their respective statements previously recorded before the police and have not implicated the petitioner and the other co-accused in commission of subject offences. All the material witnesses have since been examined.
Taking into consideration the nature of evidence which has come on record before learned trial Court in the form of testimonies of the material witnesses, the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the attendant facts and circumstances peculiar to this case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. (MANISHA BATRA) 28.11.