Jaswinder Singh @ Rana v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 10.11.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:
Mr. Gopal Rathi, Advocate for the petitioner.
***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.
!
"#$ %
!
&'( % )" *#)*+)+, !
!
+#**)- $+".+/ %+)+$.
!
0
!
*)$+$#$.,/ % +)+$/
!
1 !& 3 + 1 !
&'(
4
.
/
256 "Statement of unknown person Mahinder Singh, son of Vir Singh, son of Santa Singh, resident of Haraj, police station Talwandi, Bhai, age 70 years, phone number 95925-42460, stated that I am a resident of the above address and work as a laborer. I have four children, three boys and one girl. The eldest is my son Sukhdev Singh, the younger is Harnek Singh, the younger is Karnail Singh and the youngest is Paramjit Kaur, all
P a g e | 2 o are married. My son Harnek Singh, have a two daughter and one son, and my grandson Jagroop Singh, and my granddaughters Sunita and Rajni, who are still single. My grandson Jagroop Singh, aged 24, who used to work as a Labourar in Jeet Ram Dhall's Shellar, had gone to Talwandi Bhai on his motorcycle number PB 04 X 7985 brand Hero on 1701-2025 at around 8 pm for some work. While returning home, on the highway from Ferozepur to Moga road near Karmitti Gate, an unknown vehicle driver carelessly hit my grandson's motorcycle, due to which my grandson Jagroop Singh died and the motorcycle was badly damaged. I came to know about this accident at around 8 am today from Talwandi Bhai police station. Before this, we were searching on our own and action should be taken against the claimant, the unknown vehicle and the unknown driver as per the law."
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 07.03.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the case in hand is one based on circumstantial evidence. 7 !
has further argued that the motive attributed, if any, is to co-accused namely Kuldeep Singh whose wife (Mohinder Kaur) was suspected to have an illicit relationship with the deceased Jagroop Singh. He has further argued that as per the challan the said person namely Mohinder Kaur has not even been cited as a prosecution witness. 7 !
has further submitted that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4.
Counsel for the State has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail.
P a g e | 3 5.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6.
The petitioner was arrested on 07.03.2025, whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 25.04.2025 wherein total 21 witnesses have been cited. It is the common ground between the rival counsel that out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses none has been examined till date. It is not in dispute that the conclusion of trial will take long time. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to the dicta passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, relevant whereof reads thus:
!
"
#
$ %
&
'
%
&
'
(
P a g e | 4 The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties; as to the whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR, shall be gone into during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage lest it may prejudice the rights of either of the parties. %
2
!
8
!
! !
2
!
0 ! As per the custody certificate dated 05.11.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration 7 months and 29 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is not shown to be involved in any other case.
Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioner in custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.
The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
P a g e | 5 (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9.
Ordered accordingly.
10.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11.
Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE November 10, 2025 )
Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No