Kuldeep Singh @ Channu Vs State of Haryana

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking grant of regular bail during the pendency of trial to the petitioner/accused Kuldeep Singh @ Channu s/o Balwinder Singh, aged 24 years, in FIR No. 130 dated 23.04.2025, registered under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 3(5) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station City Mandi Dabwali, District Dabwali, Haryana. (Challan presented under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 3(5) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.)

¶13

As per the prosecution, FIR No. 130 dated 23.04.2025 was registered at Police Station City Mandi Dabwali, District Dabwali, on the statement of complainant Sarvjeet Singh. It is alleged that on 22.04.2025 at about 7:30 PM, his brother Gursewak Singh along with his friend Deepak was

¶14

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.09 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

CRM-M-18485-2026 2

¶16

attacked by two persons riding a motorcycle near Panchayat Ghar, village Masita. It is alleged that co-accused Kuldeep Singh @ Bhau, who was sitting on the pillion seat, fired several shots from pistols at Gursewak Singh and Deepak, resulting in the death of Gursewak Singh and injuries to Deepak.The FIR initially attributed the motive to a land dispute with co-accused Sanjay Kataria, who was alleged to have conspired with the assailants. The present petitioner Kuldeep Singh @ Channu was not named in the FIR and was subsequently implicated during investigation on the basis of alleged disclosure statements. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner had conducted surveillance/recce and provided information to the main accused persons. No firearm or other incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner. The challan has been presented and the petitioner is in custody since 24.04.2025.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and is not named in the FIR, wherein the specific role of firing has been attributed only to co-accused Kuldeep Singh @ Bhau. It is contended that the petitioner neither participated in the actual occurrence nor is any overt act, firearm injury or recovery of any weapon attributed to him.

¶18

3.1 It is further submitted that the petitioner's implication rests primarily on two disclosure statements recorded during the course of investigation. The first disclosure statement dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-4), recorded immediately after the petitioner's arrest, allegedly disclosed the place where the petitioner had concealed his mobile phone. However, a revised disclosure statement dated 26.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) was subsequently recorded, wherein the prosecution itself changed the earlier version regarding

¶19

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.09 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CRM-M-18485-2026 3

¶21

the concealment of the said mobile phone by attributing a different place of concealment. Learned counsel contends that these material inconsistencies in the prosecution's own case render the disclosure-based evidence unreliable and cast serious doubt on the petitioner's alleged involvement.

¶22

3.2 Learned counsel further submits that the allegation that the petitioner had conducted recce of the deceased and passed on information to the principal accused is not supported by any independent witness or other cogent evidence. No incriminating recovery has been effected from the petitioner and the call detail records relied upon by the prosecution merely indicate communication with a co-accused, which, by itself, does not establish his participation in the alleged conspiracy or the commission of the offence.

¶23

3.3 It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 24.04.2025. The investigation stands concluded and the challan has already been presented; however, charges have not yet been framed. There are 29 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Accordingly, prayer is made for

¶24

grant of the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶25

Notice of motion.

¶26

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has opposed the present petition by submitting that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence of murder committed pursuant to a criminal conspiracy. It is contended that, though the petitioner is not alleged to be the actual shooter, the investigation reveals that he had conducted recce of the deceased and passed on information to the principal accused. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner's

¶27

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.09 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

CRM-M-18485-2026 4

¶29

involvement is supported by disclosure statements, the consequential investigation, and the call detail records. Accordingly, it is argued that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and, considering the gravity of the offence, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.

¶30

Be that as it may, the petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 24.04.2025, i.e. for more than 14 months. The allegations against the petitioner are confined to his disclosure statement dated 24.04.2025 and the subsequent disclosure statement dated 26.04.2025, the alleged identification of the place where recce of the deceased was conducted, and the call detail/location records reflecting telephonic conversation with co-accused Iqbal Singh. It is not disputed that both the petitioner and co-accused Iqbal Singh are residents of the same village, namely Masita, and the allegations against both are limited to having allegedly conducted recce of the deceased. There is no material on record to prima facie indicate that the petitioner was in contact with the principal accused, namely Kuldeep Singh @ Bhau, to whom the specific role of firing has been attributed, nor is there any allegation that the petitioner participated in the actual commission of the offence. It is also a matter of record that a co-accused, who was allegedly present at the place of occurrence, has already been granted the concession of regular bail. Further, the investigation stands concluded, the challan has been presented before the learned trial Court and no prosecution witness has been examined till date. Thus, the trial is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. Considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioner, his clean antecedents, the nature of allegations attributed to him, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of

¶31

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.09 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

CRM-M-18485-2026

¶33

5

¶34

the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted. Accordingly, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶35

Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another , 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In the present case, the trial is likely to consume considerable time before reaching its logical conclusion. In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

¶36

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-

¶37

1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.

¶38

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.09 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶39

CRM-M-18485-2026

¶40

6

¶41

2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

¶42

3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

¶43

4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.

¶44

5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

¶45

6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

¶46

7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned

¶47

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.09 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶48

CRM-M-18485-2026

¶49

7

¶50

Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.

¶51

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE

¶52

09.07.2026 kv

¶53

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶54

KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.09 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Kuldeep Singh @ Channu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh @ Channu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurbhinder Singh Alias Bhinda Vs State of Punjab

Kulwinder Singh @ Babbu Vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Kumar Alias Rajesh Kashyap Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Paramjit Singh @ Pamma Vs State of Punjab

Yudhveer Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.