Allowed¶24

Pawan Kumar Alias Babba v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2025CRM-M/1594/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-1594-2025 | Pawan Kumar @ Babba v. State of Punjab | High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh | Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra | reserved 5th August 2025, pronounced 12th August 2025 | regular bail under Section 483 BNSS | FIR No. 44 dated 18.04.2024, PS Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot | Sections 302, 148, 149, 201 IPC | homicidal death of Pankaj Kumar @ Panku | eyewitnesses PW-1 Vikas Kumar and PW-6 Rahul Kumar did not implicate petitioner in murder | petitioner in custody since 19.04.2024 | trial to take time | petition allowed; release on personal/surety bonds to CJM/Duty Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. ¶24

Pawan Kumar Alias Babba Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an accused in FIR No. 44 dated 18.04.2024 (Sections 302, 148, 149 and 201 IPC, Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot) who has been in custody since 19.04.2024, is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

¶12

Court's answer

Sworn depositions of PW-1 Vikas Kumar (eyewitness) and PW-6 Rahul Kumar (eyewitness, complainant and brother of the victim), placed on record, show that neither implicated the petitioner in the offence of murder; both stated that the petitioner was not amongst the assailants of the victim-Pankaj.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Considering the nature of the evidence that has come on record, the period of incarceration of the petitioner (in custody since 19.04.2024), the time the trial will take to conclude, and the attendant facts and circumstances, but expressly without making any comment upon the merits of the case lest they prejudice the trial, the Court held that the bail petition deserved to be allowed.

¶24

Key takeaways

Since the main petition has been allowed, any pending application, if any, stands rendered infructuous.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - Regular bail granted (Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Pawan Kumar @ Babba, arrayed accused in FIR No. 44 dated 18.04.2024, Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot, registered under Sections 302, 148, 149 and 201 IPC for the homicidal assault on Pankaj Kumar @ Panku allegedly committed by an unlawful assembly acting in prosecution of a common object, had been in custody since 19.04.2024. Copies of the sworn depositions of both eyewitnesses - PW-6 Rahul Kumar (complainant and brother of the victim) and PW-1 Vikas Kumar - were placed on record and revealed that neither implicated the petitioner in the murder, both stating that he was not amongst the assailants. Keeping in view the nature of the evidence on record, the period of incarceration and the attendant facts and circumstances, and expressly refraining from comment on the merits lest the trial be prejudiced, the High Court allowed the petition; the petitioner was ordered to be released on furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, and any pending application was rendered infructuous.

¶1

CRM-M-1594-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1594-2025 Reserved on: 5^th August, 2025 Pronounced on: 12th August, 2025

Pawan Kumar @ Babba

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶10

Present: Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ***

¶11

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 44 dated 18.04.2024 registered under Sections 302, 148, 149 and 201 of IPC at Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot.

¶13

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Rahul Kumar on 18.04.2024, alleging therein that his younger brother Pankaj Kumar @ Panku, i.e. the victim, was running a hair-cutting saloon. On the same day, he was called by the non-applicant-accused Vinod @ Sonu Danna. The complainant, along with the victim and his friend Vikas @ Vicky, had reached the informed place at about 5 pm. On reaching there, they found the petitioner and coaccused Vinod @ Sonu Danna, Rahul @ Kakka and Anil Kumar @ Ninja present there being armed with weapons. They encircled the victim, his friend, and the complainant. Accused Vinod Kumar made an exhortation that the victim should not be spared on that day and then he opened an

¶14

Parveen Sharma 2025.08.13 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-1594-2025

¶16

¶17

assault upon the victim by striking blows with a datar on his head. Accused Ranjit Singh struck blows with kirpan and then the petitioner and others also gave blows with their respective weapons to the victim, thereby causing him several injuries. The clamour being raised by the complainant and Vikas attracted other persons and then the assailants fled. The victim was rushed to the hospital but succumbed to the injuries and died. The motive for killing the victim was business rivalry with accused Vinod Kumar and Rahul @ Kaka. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 19.04.2024. He suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered a datar in pursuance thereof. Presently, he along with the co-accused is facing trial for the commission of aforementioned offences.

¶18

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No specific role has been attributed to him. There is delay of four hours in reporting the matter to the police. The fatal injuries had not been attributed to him but to the co-accused Vinod Kumar and Ranjit Singh. He had no enmity with the victim. The complainant and eyewitnesses Vikas @ Vicky and Rahul Kumar have not supported the prosecution version. PW-2 Santosh Kumar i.e. father of the victim was not an eyewitness of the incident. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. He has been in custody since long. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, it is urged that he deserves to be released on bail.

¶19

Status report has been filed by respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail.

¶20

Parveen Sharma 2025.08.13 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-1594-2025

¶22

¶23

Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶24

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and has gone through the record carefully. 6. The petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof, is alleged to have assaulted the victim Pankaj Kumar and caused his homicidal death. PW-1 Vikas Kumar eye-witness to the occurrence and PW-6 Rahul Kumar, brother of the victim, who was an eyewitness to the occurrence as well as complainant have not implicated the petitioner in the offence of murder of the victim. Copies of their sworn depositions have been placed on record and it is revealed therefrom that both of them stated that the petitioner was not amongst the assailants of the victim-Pankaj. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.04.2024. Trial will take time to conclude. Keeping in view the nature of the evidence that has come on record, period of incarceration of the petitioner and the attendant facts and circumstances but without meaning to make any comment upon the merits of the case, lest they prejudice the trial, this court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶25