High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/53065/2025dismissed

Gurbhinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2026-01-21Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth8 pages

!# !$!!

! !#! %&'

) *+++'' ,% ( - % & +++/

0 1%23'

) 1'

*+++'' ,% ( - % & +++/

) *+++'' ,% ( - % & +++/

5 55 ( 7 1

*+++'' ,% ( - % & +++/

++ !8 9": +

( (! !$ ,!((

Present:

Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioners (in all the cases).

Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

**** (! !$ ,!((;

+< 2= 1.

By way of this common order, the aforementioned four petitions are being disposed of together, as they arise out of one common FIR.

Present petitions have been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 96 dated 27.09.2024, registered under Sections 103, 3(5), and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda.

Incident in question took place on 27.09.2024. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of Harpreet Kaur, wherein it was alleged that her husband3Akashdeep Singh @ Khushi, sustained injuries at the hands of the accused persons, as a result of which he died on the spot. The version of the FIR lodged by the complainant, Harpreet Kaur, aged 24 years, reads as under:

# $

(

)

* )

(

) -

./ 0.

%% 1 1

!(2 12.304

6 7 ("

(

3 % &

%% %

- %

(

%%)

(

%% )

(

) !

- %

)

) 9 9-

%% %

" : %

; 1 - (

< %

2 2 6=

7 &

(

( -

: ) 8 >

% % 8 %

?2 1

?2 &

(

( -& =

?2 "

- %

./ 0.

@ Thus, as per the FIR, accused persons named therein are Gurbhinder Singh (real brother of the complainant); Kulwinder Singh @ Khindi @ Bhalwan; Parminder Singh; and one other unidentified person. 5+ FIR further states that Kulwinder Singh @ Khindi @ Bhalwan caught hold of deceased3Akashdeep Singh, by his arms and assaulted him, as a result of which the complainant and the deceased fell

to the ground along with the motorcycle. Thereafter, Kulwinder Singh @ Khindi @ Bhalwan raised a lalkara to teach a lesson and inflicted a dasti sword blow on the middle of the head of Akashdeep Singh. Parminder Singh inflicted a blow with the handle of a hand pump on the left side of the face of Akashdeep Singh. Gurbhinder Singh inflicted a kappa blow on the left arm of Akashdeep Singh near the elbow. The fourth unidentified person inflicted a blow with an iron rod on Akashdeep Singh 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has appended a copy of the statement of the witness, PW1 Harpreet Kaur, who, while appearing in the witness box, has identified only her brother, Gurbhinder Singh, and, with respect to the other accused, has specifically stated that "

Another witness, Gurdeep Singh, appeared as PW3 and is related as the brother3in3law (Jija) of deceased3Akashdeep Singh. It is, however, not clear whether he himself was an eyewitness, as per the FIR he was not present at the spot. Further, the defence counsel raised an objection to the examination3in3chief of the said witness on the ground that his deposition is based on hearsay evidence. None of the other witnesses, namely Gurdeep Singh (PW3), Rupinder Kaur (PW4), and Arshdeep Singh (PW5), are alleged to be eyewitnesses of the incident.

Thus, Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate, argues that once a witness has turned hostile and the eyewitnesses are unable to identify the petitioners-Kulwinder Singh @ Khindi @ Bhalwan and Parminder Singh-they need not be detained in custody any longer, particularly as they have already been confined in jail for over one year and three months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as far as petitioner Sameer Khan is concerned, his involvement in the case is based solely on the supplementary statement of Gurdeep Singh (PW3), recorded on 29.09.2024, i.e., two days after the incident, wherein the allegation pertained only to conducting %

% (reki) of the location of deceased3Akashdeep Singh.

Admittedly, petitioner3Sameer Khan was not directly involved in the incident resulting in the murder of Akashdeep Singh or in causing the injuries to the deceased. Petitioner Sameer Khan has been in custody for the past one year and three months. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioners prays for the grant of the petition.

From the status report, learned State counsel has pointed out certain facts which have already been noticed hereinabove by the Court. Learned State counsel further submits that, perhaps due to the production of the accused persons through video conferencing, witness Harpreet Kaur was unable to clearly identify the said accused; therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioners on account of the lack of clear identification.

Learned State counsel further submits that there have been certain recoveries from all the accused; hence, solely on the basis of the witness not supporting the prosecution, petitioners do not become entitled to bail.

Learned State counsel further submits that he will request the concerned District Attorney to move an application once again for the production of the accused, Kulwinder Singh @ Khindi @ Bhalwan and Parminder Singh, so that they may be personally produced in the witness box before the Court and the issue of identification can be clarified. 8.

May do so.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper3books as well as the status report appended thereto.

10.

Undoubtedly, the deceased sustained several injuries, which are recorded in the post3mortem report. For reference, the same reads as follows:

Incised wound 15 cm x 5 cm present over the left forearm over the dorsal medial surface of proximal forearm, underlying muscles found cut, fracture of uina was present.

Incised wound 10 x 10 cm was present over the left elbow joint Just proximal to Injury No 1, underlying muscles was found cut and bones (distal humorus) was found cut

Incised wound 15 x 5 cm present on the left side of mandible extending upto the just below left ear, underlying muscles were found cut, mandible were found cut.

> Two incised wounds 5 x 1 cm each were present on the left cheek and going upto the wound of skull. Underlying bones of maxilla found cut

Incised wound 4 x 2 cm was present on the left ear, cutting the car cartilage ! Incised wound 10 x 3 cm present just above injury No 5 meeting the wound of injury No 5 near left ear, underlying muscles found cut. bones found cut !

Large oval incised wound present over the left side of temporal panetal area of scalp, underlying soft tissue found cut, brain matter was found coming out of wound with multiple pieces of skull bone "

" Incised wound 4 x 1 cm present over the middle of scalp in occipital area.

# # Incised wound 10 x 10 cm was present over the right hand in fourth web space, underlying muscles and tendons was found cut and 5th finger of hand was held with skin tag only 11.

However, regarding the identification of Gurbhinder Singh, witness Harpreet Kaur (PW2) has clearly deposed that she identifies him, who is none other than the real brother of the complainant. The reason for the murder of Akashdeep Singh is also evident from the FIR, which indicates that Gurbhinder Singh was dissatisfied with the love marriage solemnized by the complainant with Akashdeep Singh @ Khushi (deceased). Accordingly, petition i.e. ?%

/'' %&'

) ' %')2@ &@

'7' However, considering the fact that the other two accused, namely 1%23'

) 1'

), have not been clearly identified by the witness as of now and Sameer Khan is alleged to be involved only in conducting in relation

to the location of Akashdeep Singh, which is yet to be established by the prosecution through admissible evidence.

Accordingly, petitions i.e. CRM3M3530683205, CRM3M3 5459332025 and CRM3M34134132025 qua petitioners 1%23'

) 1'

;

); and ( 7 1

are allowed. Petitioners, namely Kulwinder Singh @ Khindi @ Bhalwan, Parminder Singh, and Sameer Khan, are ordered to be released on regular bail in the present case, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, provided they are not required in connection with any other case.

12.

Any discussion recorded herein shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. The learned trial Court is expected to decide the matter independently, based on the evidence available on record, and expeditiously in accordance with law. 13.

In the above terms, the present petitions stand disposed of. 14.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case.

<(! !$ ,!((=

% @ ;

Rashmi Whether Speaking/Reasoned:$(A

Whether Reportable:

$(A