Gagandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M No.52887 of 2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.52887 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 Gagandeep Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *****
Present:
Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG, Punjab ***** 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.110, dated 14.09.2021, under Sections 307, 379-B, 458, 336, 323, 447, 448, 511, 506, 427, 148, 149 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act (Sections 195/199 of IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Raikot, District Ludhiana Rural.
2.
Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Harinder Singh s/o Isher Singh. It was alleged that the complainant was running a rice mill as well as running a Crystal Marriage Palace, Lohatbaddi on lease. It was alleged that vide agreement letter dated 31.05.2021, the complainant had taken the Crystal Marriage Palace on lease from Harcharan Singh and the said palace was earlier shared by Harcharan Singh and his partner, namely, Inderjit Singh. It was alleged
CRM-M No.52887 of 2025 -2that on 11.09.2021, Amrik Singh and Iqbal Singh @ Lali were present in their office at Crystal Marriage Palace. At about 9.30 P.M., five cars stopped in front of the palace in which Gurwinder Singh @ Ruby, Inderjit Singh, Arshdeep Singh @ Bittu, Gurwinder Singh, Gurpreet Singh @ Guri, Jagroop Singh @ Roopa along with 19-20 unidentified persons, armed with deadly weapons including Kahi squads, gandase, sticks, came there. Thereafter, Inderjit Singh raised lalkara to teach lesson to Harinder Singh for giving evidence against him and for taking the palace on contract and then, all the accused forcibly entered into the palace and started damaging the articles of palace, bathrooms and office.
It was alleged that when the complainant tried to stop them, Gurpreet Singh @ Guri and Jagroop Singh caught him and Gurwinder Singh @ Ruby gave gandasa blow with an intention to kill, which hit near the elbow of his left arm. Thereafter, Arshdeep Singh, Gurwinder Singh and other unidentified persons caught the complainant and threw him down and further started beating him. They inflicted injuries on his right leg, thigh and lower back of the complainant. It was alleged that Gurwinder Singh @ Ruby broke the lock of the drawer of his table and then, taken away an amount of Rs.50,000/- and also snatched his mobile phone make Samsung. The accused persons also gave beating to Amrik Singh and inflicted injuries to him. They also taken away the DVR of camera installed in the palace.
The complainant and Amrik Singh got admitted in the Civil Hospital, Raikot for treatment by Jaskaran Singh. It was alleged that the attorney holder of Harcharan Singh, namely, Sukhminder Singh got employed two security guards Baljinder Singh and Jaspal Singh in the palace.
CRM-M No.52887 of 2025 -314.09.2021, in the morning, Jaspal Singh told the complainant that in the night at about 11/12 P.M., Gurwinder Singh @ Ruby, Inderjit Singh, Arshdeep Singh, Gurwinder Singh, Gurpreet Singh @ Guri, Jagroop Singh @ Roopa along with 20-22 unidentified persons, armed with revolvers, country made pistols, rifles, bats and spade, forcibly entered into the palace and Inderjit Singh with an intention to kill him fired shots from his revolver towards him but he fell down. Inderjit Singh even snatched his licenced rifle along with cartridges and started beating him. It was alleged that they fired 10-12 shots in the air and damaged the articles of palace and then fled away from the place of occurrence. Thus, the request was made to take legal action against all the accused. On the basis of the same, the FIR was registered.
On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and thus, he was arrayed as an accused in the present case. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2025. On completion of the investigation, the challan has been presented. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana praying for the grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 29.08.2025. 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
CRM-M No.52887 of 2025 -4submitted that the petitioner has been alleged to be the part of unlawful assembly. He has submitted that the co-accused, namely, Gurwinder Singh @ Ruby has been alleged to have fired at the complainant, however the same did not hit anyone. He has submitted that co-accused, namely, Gurwinder Singh @ Ruby has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2022 passed in CRM-M-10732-2022. He has submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, Kanwalpreet Singh which was recorded after about one year of the incident. He has submitted that the petitioner has not been alleged any active role. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since 16.07.2025. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail. 4.
Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She has submitted that the petitioner was the part of the unlawful assembly. She has submitted that the petitioner has been identified in the CCTV as well. She, on instructions, has submitted that the charges have already been framed. She has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record.
5.
Heard.
6.
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. 16.07.2025. the alleged occurrence has taken place on 14.09.2021 and the petitioner was arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, Kanwalpreet Singh, which was
CRM-M No.52887 of 2025 -5recorded after about one year of the incident. The co-accused, namely, Gurwinder Singh @ Ruby, who has alleged to have fired, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2022. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 08 months and 06 days as on 22.03.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is convicted in one more case, however he has completed the sentence in that case. Charges have already been presented in this case.
7.
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. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
8.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 9.
Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the cases.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 23.03.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned :
Yes/No Whether Reportable :
Yes/No