Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted to both petitioners (Harpreet Singh and Ajaypal Singh @ Ajay @ Billi), subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate concerned; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners (accused in FIR No.27 dated 23.03.2022 under Sections 302, 148, 149, 120B IPC, PS Majitha, Amritsar) are entitled to regular bail, considering their alleged roles (recce by Harpreet Singh; injury with wooden bat attributed to Ajaypal Singh), the nature of the deceased's injuries vis-a-vis the recoveries, custody undergone, antecedents, stage of trial and parity with co-accused Jobanpreet Singh @ Joban.

Court's answer

Both regular bail petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be admitted to regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate concerned.

Ratio / Principle

The Court took into consideration that the injuries on the body of the deceased are not relatable to the recovery effected by the respondent and the probability of such injuries having been caused by the petitioners, coupled with the fact that no injury is attributed to petitioner-Harpreet Singh.

Key takeaways

The petitioners' clean antecedents, the period of custody undergone and the stage of trial weighed in favour of granting bail.ratio¶6
Parity was extended: co-accused Jobanpreet Singh @ Joban had already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 24.07.2025 in CRM-M-48453-2024.ratio¶6
As a condition of bail, the petitioners shall not extend any threat to, and shall not influence, any prosecution witness directly or indirectly.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., Oral), 10.11.2025: Common order allowing two regular bail petitions — CRM-M-5619-2023 (Harpreet Singh) and CRM-M-20523-2023 (Ajaypal Singh @ Ajay @ Billi) — arising from FIR No.27 dated 23.03.2022, PS Majitha, District Amritsar, under Sections 302, 148, 149, 120B IPC (fatal attack on Karamjit Singh on 22.03.2022 by 6-7 unidentified persons on motorcycles). Bail granted considering: (i) the injuries on the deceased not relatable to the recoveries (motorcycle and mobile phone from Harpreet Singh; wooden bat from Ajaypal Singh) and the probability of the petitioners having caused them; (ii) no injury attributed to Harpreet Singh; (iii) clean antecedents; (iv) custody undergone (03 years 03 months, arrested 14.07.2022; 02 years 10 months 29 days, arrested 10.12.2022); (v) early stage of trial (only 01 of 17 witnesses examined); and (vi) parity with co-accused Jobanpreet Singh @ Joban, already on regular bail (order dated 24.07.2025 in CRM-M48453-2024). Petitioners barred from threatening/influencing witnesses; observations expressly not an expression on merits.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

103 (02 cases)

CRM-M-5619-2023(O&M); CRM-M-20523-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.11.2025

1. CRM-M-5619-2023 (O&M) Harpreet Singh ...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. CRM-M-20523-2023 (O&M) Ajaypal Singh @ Ajay @ Billi ...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Jitender Singh Dadwal, Advoca t e, for the petitioner, (in C RM-M-5619-2023).

Ms . Nisha Rana, Advocate, for the p e titioner, (in C RM-M-20523-2023).

Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. AG, Punja b .

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Bo t h these petitions for grant of reg u lar bail, arising out from the same FIR beari n g No.27 dated 23.03.2022 regist e red under Sections 302, 148, 149, 120B of t h e Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P o lice Station Majitha, District Amritsar are bei n g decided by a common order.

Bri e fly summarized, the case of the p rosecution is that the present FIR was registe r ed on the statement of Kunan Si n gh, which is to the effect that on 22.03.2022, h is younger son Karamjit Singh w as present at his shop at about 9.15 P.M., whe n around 6-7 unidentified persons came on three motorcycles, armed with dea d ly weapons and caused fatal inj u ries to his son and fled away from the spot. T h ereafter, said Karamjit Singh di e d due to the injuries received in the occurrenc e .

Le a rned counsel appearing on beh a lf of the petitioners contend SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.10 19:29 I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentthat while petiti o ner-Ajaypal Singh @ Ajay @ B i lli is attributed an injury with

2

103 CRM-M-56 1 9-2023(O&M); CRM-M-20 5 23-2023 (O&M)

a wooden bat, t h e petitioner-Harpreet Singh is a lleged to have undertaken a recce and infor m ed the assailants about the pr e sence of the deceased in the shop. It is only on the receipt of the message f rom Harpreet Singh that the assailants came to the spot on motorcycles and caused injuries. They further contend that th e re are as many as 14 injuries o n the person of the deceased which are either in the nature of abrasions or in the nature of incised wounds. They further co n tend that the injury in the nature of incised wound could not have been cause d with the wooden bat and that t h e petitioner-Harpreet Singh in any case has n o t been attributed any injury t o the deceased. They further contend that wh i le petitioner-Ajaypal Singh @ A jay @ Billi has undergone an actual custody o f 03 years and 03 months af t er the arrest on 14.07.2022, petitioner-Harpr e et Singh has undergone an act u al custody 02 years and 10 months and 29 d ays since his arrest on 10.12.2 0 22. It is contended that the petitioners are n o t involved in any other case an d that out of total 17 witnesses cited by the pro s ecution, only 01 witness has bee n examined so far. The trial is thus likely to ta k e long in its conclusion. They f urther submit that a similarly placed co-accu s ed Jobanpreet Singh @ Joba n has already been granted concession of r e gular bail vide order dated 24 . 07.2025 passed in CRM-M48453-2024.

Le a rned State Counsel on the o t her hand contends that the petitioner-Harpr e et Singh had undertaken recce a nd it was only on intimation by the said petit i oner that all other assailants ent e red into the shop and caused a large number of injuries to the deceased. H e further contends that the recovery of mot o rcycle and a mobile phone from petitioner-Harpreet Singh and a wooden bat fr o m petitioner-Ajaypal Singh @ A jay @ Billi has already been effected which s hows their participation in the c o mmission of the offence. He SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.10 19:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

103 CRM-M-56 1 9-2023(O&M); CRM-M-20 5 23-2023 (O&M)

however does n o t dispute the clean antecedents of the petitioners as also the period of incarc e ration as well as the stage of tria l .

I h a ve heard learned counsel for t h e respective parties and have gone through th e documents appended alongwith the present petition. 6. Ta k ing into consideration, the argu m ent of the petitioner that the injuries on the b ody of the deceased are not rel a table to the recovery effected by the responde n t and the probability of such i nj uries having been caused by the petitioners coupled with the fact that no inj u ry is attributed to petitionerHarpreet Singh c oupled with their clean anteced e nts, the period of custody as well as the stage of trial and that the co-accused- J obanpreet Singh @ Joban has already been gr a nted concession of regular bail vide order dated 24.07.2025 passed in CR M -M-48453-2024, I deem it app r opriate to allow the present petitions.

Ac c ordingly, the instant petitions a r e allowed and the petitioners are ordered to b e admitted to regular bail subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the sa t isfaction of the trial Court/Dut y Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate concerned.

It i s made clear that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influen c e any prosecution witness in an y manner directly or indirectly. 9. Th e observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial C ourt shall decide the case on the basis of avai l able material.

Pe n ding application(s), if any, shall s tand disposed of.

10.11.2025 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.10 19:29 Whether spe a king/reasoned : Yes/No I attest to the accuracy andWhether rep o rtable : Yes/No integrity of this document