Allowed¶7

Akashdeep Singh @ Kali v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2026CRM-M/18617/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-M-18617-2026 (O&M), Manisha Batra J., decision 29.05.2026 — regular bail allowed under S.483 BNSS 2023 to accused Akashdeep Singh @ Kali in FIR No.272 dated 13.09.2022 under Ss.302, 148, 149 IPC, PS Civil Lines Batala, District Gurdaspur; circumstantial-evidence murder case hinging on disclosure statement; prolonged custody versus right to speedy trial; no apprehension of tampering or absconding upheld; release on personal/surety bonds; observations not to be read on merits.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail: petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. ¶7

Akashdeep Singh @ Kali Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail: petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Akashdeep Singh @ Kali, facing trial in FIR No.272 dated 13.09.2022 registered under Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines Batala, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶1

Court's answer

This Court held that the petitioner has made out a case for his release on bail.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Continued detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose, and his prolonged custody militates against his right to speedy trial.

¶7

Key takeaways

The case mainly rests upon the disclosure statement of the petitioner and is one of circumstantial evidence whose veracity will be tested during trial; the cause of death of the victim can be concluded only on thorough assessment of the evidence produced at trial.ratio¶7
There is no basis for the contention that the petitioner will tamper with the evidence or may abscond if extended the benefit of bail.ratio¶7
Observations made in the order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail under Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Accused in FIR No.272 dated 13.09.2022, Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC, PS Civil Lines Batala, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur (death of specially abled victim Ravinder Singh) — Case rests on circumstantial evidence, principally the petitioner's disclosure statement; no eye-witness; cause of death (head injury noted in post-mortem report) to be assessed only on thorough assessment of trial evidence — Petitioner in custody since arrest on 16.08.2024; none of 19 prosecution witnesses examined; trial to take considerable time — No basis to apprehend tampering with evidence or absconding — Held: continued detention would serve no useful purpose and prolonged custody militates against the right to speedy trial; petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate — Observations not an expression of opinion on merits.

¶1

CRM-M-18617-2026 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

210 CRM-M-18617-2026 (O&M)

¶5

Akashdeep Singh @ Kali ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State	of Punjab ..	. Respondent
1.	The date when thejudgment is reserved	26.05.2026
2.	The date when thejudgment ispronounced	29.05.2026
3.	The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website	29.05.2026
4.	Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced	Full
5.	The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof	Not applicable

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶9

Present: Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

¶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 arising out of FIR No.272, dated 13.09.2022, registered under Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines Batala, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.

¶13

¶14

HARJEET KAUR 2026.05.29 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

-2-

¶16

CRM-M-18617-2026 (O&M)

¶17

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant- Kulwant Singh, alleging therein that in the morning of 08.08.2022, his son Ravinder Singh, who was specially abled person and used a tricycle to move around, had left home on the said tricycle and did not return. They started searching for him and found his dead body to be lying in front of focal point. As he could not notice any external injury on the dead body of his son and did not suspect anything else, hence he had recorded a statement to the police for not taking any action as he presumed that his son had died due to heat stroke or suffered an attack. By alleging that Bau son of Balwant Singh, his brother Bhindi, Sajan, Sunny, present petitioner and other persons, who had been extending threats to the complainant and had an altercation with him in the past, had a hand in the murder of the victim, he prayed for taking action in the matter.

¶18

After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 16.08.2024. He suffered disclosure statement to the effect that on 08.08.2024, he along with the co-accused had surrounded the victim and had given slaps to him. Co-accused Parminder Singh @ Bhindi in a fit of anger pushed the wheelchair of the victim due to which he had fallen on the ground and suffered head injury, resulting into his becoming unconscious and then his death. Some of the other accused were also arrested subsequently. Investigation now stands concluded. The petitioner along with co-accused is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences.

¶19

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. There is no eye

¶20

HARJEET KAUR 2026.05.29 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-18617-2026 (O&M)

¶22

-3-

¶23

witness to the murder/death of the victim. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence and there is no circumstance to connect him with the subject crime. The disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him and co-accused cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. There is delay of 01 month and 06 days in reporting the matter to the police, which has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby causing serious dent in the entire story as framed by the complainant. The complainant himself had stated that his son had died due to heat stroke and heart attack. His death was natural one and not homicidal. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. He has been made a scapegoat. He is in custody since long. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as none out of 19 prosecution witnesses, has been examined so far. His antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by his further incarceration. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

¶24

Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. There are chances of his tampering with the evidence or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly is alleged to have caused death of son of the complainant as on 08.08.2024. The FIR was registered only on 13.09.2024. As per the post mortem examination report, the victim had sustained a head injury, however, it is

¶27

HARJEET KAUR 2026.05.29 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-18617-2026 (O&M)

¶29

-4-

¶30

only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any conclusion as to the cause of death of victim can be drawn. The case mainly rests upon the disclosure statement of the petitioner. The veracity of the same will be tested during trial. It is case of circumstantial evidence. There is no basis for the contention that he will tamper with the evidence or may abscond. The trial will obviously take considerable time to conclude. As such, continued detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petitioner has been in prolonged custody which militates against his right to speedy trial. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for his release 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 learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶31