Palwinder Singh Alias Prince v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 PALWINDER SINGH @ PRINCE ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Mehak, Advocate for the petitioner.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0271 dated 31.12.2019 under Sections 307, 212, 216, 468, 471, 473, 482 and 34 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, 1860 registered at Police Station, Beas, District Amritsar(Rural).

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 29.12.2019 co-accused Robin Singh @ Bobby allegedly attacked the complainant and his friends, as a result of which the complainant sustained a gunshot injury on his right thigh, while his friend, Satpal Singh, suffered a gunshot injury on his left bicep.
      

         

           

    


                      

                                        !

 " !

 

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by the co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. It is further submitted that, apart from the said disclosure statement, there is no other material evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. He further submits that the co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner along with his co-accused fired gun shots at the complainant and his friends resulting in fatal injuries on their persons. He has filed the custody certificate as well status report in Court, which are taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 09 months and 15 days and is involved in one other case under IPC. He further submits that charges have already been framed and out of total cited 19 prosecution witnesses only 03 have been examined so far.

6.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

7.

After hearing the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that apart from the disclosure statement there is no corroborated evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence; the petitioner is in

custody for the last last 09 months and 15 days ; and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the view that further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." 8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 25.02.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No