Paramjit Singh @ Pamma Vs State of Punjab

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 155 dated 16.07.2023 registered under Sections 302, 34, 212 and 120-B of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station City Moga, District Moga.

¶16

The aforementioned FIR, was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Mahinder Kaur, on 16.07.2023 alleging that her younger son Sukhdev Singh @ Sebu was confined in Faridkot Jail in connection with some case. On the same day, she, along with her husband Santokh Singh, was present in her house when someone knocked at her house. On opening the gate, she found four persons to be present there. They disclosed that they had been sent by Sukhdev Singh. They came inside and asked for water. The husband of the complainant also reached there. Suddenly, one of those four persons, took out a pistol from his

¶17

Parveen Sharma 2025.07.25 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-16148-2024

¶19

2-

¶20

pocket, and while pointing the same towards her husband, fired shots with the same. Her husband had fallen down due to the impact of injuries sustained by him. She raised clamour, on hearing which the assailants fled. Her husband succumbed to the injuries. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated.

¶21

As per the further allegations, on 17.07.2023, the complainant got recorded her supplementary statement to the effect that a quarrel had taken place between her son Sukhdev Singh, confined in jail with one Gaurav Sharma @ Goru Bachcha due to which Gaurav Sharma was holding a grudge against her son and had got committed the murder of her husband. On her statement, offence under Section 120-B of IPC was added and accused Gaurav Sharma was nominated as such. He was arrested and suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which, accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda and Amritpal were nominated as coaccused. Subsequently, accused Nirmal Singh @ Nimma was nominated and arrested. Accused Nirmal Singh suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which, accused April Singh @ Shera and Jaskaran Singh @ Karan were nominated. On interrogation, they took the name of the present petitioner and he was nominated as accused on 28.07.2023. He was arrested on the same day. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting that he had hatched a conspiracy for the murder of the victim along with the coaccused and he had assured harbouring of the co-accused after committing the murder. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences.

¶22

Parveen Sharma 2025.07.25 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-16148-2024

¶24

3-

¶25

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. The supplementary statement of the complainant was without any basis. No recovery has been effected from him. He never hatched any conspiracy with the co-accused. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. No material has been collected to show that he had facilitated harbouring of the coaccused. He was not one of the assailants. The trial is likely to take considerable time. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in another case under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC cannot be considered to be a reason for not allowing the benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

¶26

Status report has been filed. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, has argued that the petitioner had hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused and had assured them to take shelter in his house after committing murder of the victim. It is submitted that, keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

¶28

The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused and is alleged to have asked the co-accused to take shelter in his house after committing the murder of the victim. There is, however, nothing on record to suggest that, after the murder of the victim, he had harboured the assailants. There is no direct allegation, qua his complicity in the offence

¶29

Parveen Sharma 2025.07.25 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-16148-2024

¶31

4-

¶32

of murder of the victim. He is in custody for a period of about two years. Trial will take considerable time as not even a single witness has been examined so far. It is a debatable question as to whether, the petitioner was involved in hatching conspiracy or committing the murder of the victim. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against him, the period spent by him in custody and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, lest they prejudice the trial, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 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.

¶33