Labh Singh Vs State of Punjab

Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.154 dated 05.08.2023 registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Samana (Sadar Samana), District Patiala.

¶15

The FIR in the present case has been registered against the present petitioner on the basis of complaint made by Mandeep Singh on the ground that co-accused Randhir Singh armed with pistol, Gurnaib Singh armed with Gandasi , Labh Singh (petitioner herein) armed with Daang , Gurdeep Singh armed with wooden Phatti (plank) having nails, Nirmal Singh armed with Takua , Rana Singh armed with Daang , Jashanpreet Singh

¶16

MANISHA 2026.04.24 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-20992-2026

¶18

2

¶19

committed murder of Rajinder Singh and also caused injuries to the complainant-Mandeep Singh.

¶20

As per allegations levelled by complainant, co-accused Randhir Singh brandished his pistol in the air and raised instigation ( lalkara ). Thereafter co-accused Gurdeep Singh gave an injury on the head of deceased Rajinder Singh with a wooden plank on which nails were fitted. Thereafter coaccused Nirmal Singh gave blow of reverse side of Takhua on forehead of complainant and co-accused Ranbir Singh @ Rana gave a stick blow on the right shoulder of the complainant namely Mandeep Singh. Petitioner along with all the accused attacked with their respective weapons, upon the complainant and his brother-Rajinder Singh. The petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused by learned trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are total eight accused in the present FIR and final report was presented only against 05 of them whereas the present petitioner along with other co-accused were declared innocent by the police; later on, the petitioner was summoned as an additional accused by the trial Court under section 319 Cr.P.C., however, no injury has been attributed to the petitioner. It is further contended that as per MLR of deceased Rajinder Singh (Annexure P-2), the deceased sustained only one injury on his head, which is attributed to co-accused Gurdeep Singh and as per MLR of complainant Mandeep Singh, he sustained total four injuries out of which, none has been attributed to the present petitioner; the case of the petitioner is on same footing with co-accused, namely, Gurnaib Singh, who has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide

¶22

MANISHA 2026.04.24 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-20992-2026

¶24

3

¶25

order dated 17.04.2026 passed in CRM-M No.20052 of 2026 ; co-accused namely Nirmal Singh, Ranbir Singh @ Rana @ Ranvir Singh and Randhir Singh have been granted the concession of regular bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 07.04.2025, 30.04.2025 and 08.09.2025 passed in CRM-M Nos.479, 21898 & 28331 of 2025 (Annexures P-4 to P-6 respectively) and the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation.

¶26

Notice of motion.

¶27

Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner while submitting that during the occurrence, the petitioner was armed with a daang and formed a part of unlawful assembly. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the present petitioner is not required for investigation or custodial interrogation. Further, learned State counsel fairly admitted that no injury is attributed to the petitioner; the main injury caused to the deceased-Rajender Singh is attributed to his co-accused namely, Gurdeep Singh; three of the co-accused have been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court; and the petitioner is having clean & clear antecedents.

¶28

Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer made on

¶29

behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

7. Heard.

¶31

Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case

¶32

and the allegations against the present petitioner that he formed a part of unlawful assembly and was armed with daang ; injury caused to the deceased namely, Rajender Singh is attributed to co-accused-Gurdeep Singh who is already in custody; petitioner is having clean and clear antecedents and is not

¶33

MANISHA 2026.04.24 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CRM-M-20992-2026

¶35

4

¶36

involved in any other criminal activity; this Court is of the considered view that petitioner deserves the concession of relief of anticipatory bail.

¶37

Grant of Anticipatory bail, in a case, where an accused is summoned as an additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. is not barred under the provisions of Cr.P.C. The criteria that is to be taken into consideration while granting anticipatory bail remains same that is laid down in section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, though summoned after being added as an additional accused in the ongoing trial can verily lose his liberty upon his appearance. There is no gainsaying that protection of liberty is one of the most cherished objects of the Constitution as reflected in Article 21 of the Constitution. Such a remedy therefore, cannot be denied. However, it cannot be treated as a straightjacket formula that in each and every case, where accused is summoned as additional accused, he must be released on bail. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion of the Court depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.

¶38

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Baljinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab 2015 (3) RCR (Criminal) 950 , while considering

¶39

the plea of anticipatory bail to an accused, who was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for commission of an offence under section 302 IPC, held as under :-

¶40

"7. There can, thus, be no doubt that the trial court committed no error in summoning the petitioners as additional accused in the instant case as their names figured in the FIR and specific role has been attributed to them. The question, however, remains whether they are entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. For considering this question, principles laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The State of Punjab AIR 1980 (SC)

¶41

MANISHA 2026.04.24 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

CRM-M-20992-2026

¶43

5

¶44

1632 need to be recalled. It was held therein that jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by wise and careful use of discretion. In case an accused has a reason to believe that he would be arrested for a non bailable offence, he would be entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down for exercise of this power, it would be taken on facts and circumstances of each case. In the case in hand, since petitioners have been summoned to face trial for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., on their appearance before the court, they have a reasonable apprehension that they would be taken in custody. Thus, plea for anticipatory bail is not misconceived. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty to its citizens. Criminal law derives its source and substance from the Constitution. All other laws are supplementary and incidental to the principles laid down in the Constitution (see Vikas v. State of Rajasthan's case (supra) paras 13, 14). Thus, such additional accused who do not intend to defy law and are ready to face trial, their plea for anticipatory bail can be considered, subject to the principles already laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case (supra). Though Section 438 Cr.P.C does not confer a right on such accused to be granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, their plea would deserve consideration within the available parameters. If appearance of additional accused can be secured and the court is satisfied that they would cooperate during the proceedings, their plea for anticipatory bail can be accepted. It also needs to be emphasized that at the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C., some deposition of prosecution witness(s) is before the court and on consideration of same additional accused are summoned. However summoning under Section 193 Cr.P.C. is only on the basis of material accompanying the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. On perusal of same, additional accused are arraigned. Thus, such accused are entitled to pray for

¶45

MANISHA 2026.04.24 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

CRM-M-20992-2026

¶47

6

¶48

anticipatory bail on the ground that their role was examined by the investigating agency but they were found innocent."

¶49

The present petitioner is not required for any custodial purpose and judicial custody of the petitioner is not required as he is required to face the trial along with other co-accused. Since the trial will take time to conclude, the petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on the date fixed before the trial Court and if he appears/ surrender before the said Court, the trial Court is directed to release him on interim bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶50

(SUBHAS MEHLA) April 18, 2026 JUDGE manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

¶51

MANISHA 2026.04.24 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Labh Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Labh Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Vs State of Haryana

Ramandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Kapil Rana Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Another

Hardeep Singh Alias Deepu Vs State of Punjab

Suraj Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Singh Alias Preet Vs State of Punjab