Raman Vs State of Punjab

The instant 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 arising out of FIR No.129, dated 20.08.2025, registered under Sections 103, 308(4), 3(5), 111(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.

¶14

As per the allegations, on the night of 19.08.2025, victim Ravi Kumar had reached his home after closing his shop in routine manner and when he was present at the gate of his house, some unknown persons reached there on a motorbike and fired gun shot upon him, thereby seriously injuring him. The victim was rushed to the hospital but had succumbed to

¶15

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

-2-

¶17

CRM-M-14439-2026 (O&M)

¶18

the injuries. The complainant, who is brother of the deceased, while recording his statement informed that the victim had been receiving extortion calls from some international phone number from sometime and the caller had induced himself as gangster Shamsher Singh.

¶19

After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. On 06.09.2025, child-in-conflict with law XXX was apprehended. He suffered disclosure statement to the effect that his co-villager Vishal Masih @ Dana had introduced him with a member of gang of Shamsher Singh @ Shera Mann @ Honey, presently residing in Armenia and other members of his gang, who were wanted in several other criminal cases. He had also joined membership of that gang and had started carrying out extortion and target killing along with co-accused Anand Masih @ Vishal Masih. He disclosed that on instructions of gangster Shamsher Singh, Sajan Masih and Vishal Masih, he had fired shot at a property dealer in Tanda on 14.08.2025 and thereafter had handed over the weapon to accused Anand Masih. He also disclosed about receiving a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the coaccused and about giving a sum of Rs.5000/- to the present petitioner and her husband Paramjit Singh, who are parents of co-accused Ashish Khichri. He also disclosed about receiving information about the incident of this case on the night of 19.08.2025. On the basis of his disclosure statement, the petitioner and some other persons were nominated as accused. The petitioner was arrested on 20.01.2026. Investigation qua her stands concluded.

¶20

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in

¶21

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-14439-2026 (O&M)

¶23

-3-

¶24

evidence. She is alleged to be a co-conspirator in the commission of subject crime. However, no material has been collected to prove so. No recovery has been effected from her. She is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Her further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Her antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be released on bail.

¶25

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations as levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as she despite being fully aware that her son was an active member of a criminal gang engaged in extortion and target killings, knowingly received an amount of Rs.5,000/sent by him through child in conflict with law as consideration for commission of offence of murder of the victim. There are chances of her committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶26

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at length.

¶27

The petitioner, who is admittedly mother of co-accused Ashish Khichri is alleged to have received an amount of Rs.5000/- sent by him through child-in-conflict with law involved in this case. The role attributed to the petitioner is that of receiving money from the co-accused, while fully knowing the involvement of her son in criminal activities. The linkage sought to be established between her and the commission of subject offences, primarily rests on disclosure statement of the co-accused and circumstantial inferences. Since the case against the petitioner rests on

¶28

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-14439-2026 (O&M)

¶30

-4-

¶31

disclosure statement of the co-accused, it is a matter best left for trial whether the burden of proof and standard of evidence shall be applied rigorously. It is only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced on record that any definite conclusion about the complicity of the petitioner in commission of subject offences has to be drawn. Taking into consideration the forgoing discussion, particularly the role as ascribed to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to her furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) She shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date of hearing unless exempted.

¶33

(ii) She shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence witnesses in any manner.

¶34

(iii) She shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶35

It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶36

23.07.2026

¶37

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

¶38

harjeet

¶39

Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable :

¶40

Yes/No Yes/No

¶41

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Raman v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raman v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar and Another Vs State of Haryana

Prabhjot Singh Vs State of Punjab

Nazim Khan Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sarabjit Singh and Anr. Vs Happy Chhabra

Pala Singh and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Devraj Vs State of Punjab