Allowed

Manpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CRM-M/36328/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a second bail petition filed under Section 483 BNSS by an accused charged with murder. The court held that successive applications are maintainable if fresh grounds exist, citing the eye-witness becoming hostile and the investigation's conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Magistrate.

Manpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-36328-2026 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36328-2026 (O&M)

MANPREET SINGH

. .. Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶10

1	The date when thejudgment is reser ved	09.09.2026
2	The date when the judgment is pron ounced	10.09.2026
3	The web date when the judgment is uplo site aded on the	10.09.2026
4	Whe pron pron ther only operative part of the ju ounced or whether the full judg ounced dgment is ment is	Full
5	The judg delay, if any, of the pronouncem ment and reasons thereof. ent of full	Not applicable

¶11

Present: M r. Tanvir Singh Attariwala, Ad v ocate for the petitioner M s. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punja b

¶12

¶13

MANISHA BATRA, J.

¶14

T he instant one is the second p etition filed by the petitione r under Sectio n 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Su r aksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shor t “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case a rising out of FIR No.15 date d 13.03.2024 re g istered under Section 302 of I P C at Police Station Garhdiwala , District Hosh i arpur. His previous petition b earing No.CRM-M-1227-202 6 was dismisse d as withdrawn on 19.01.2026. 2. T he aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statemen t recorded by t he complainant, Narajan Ka u r alleging therein that on th e

¶15

AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶16

CRM-M-36328-2026 (O&M)

¶17

¶18

intervening n ight of 12/13.03.2024, she a l ong with her grandsons wa s sleeping in h e r house. At about 1:00 AM, o n hearing some noises from th e room of her e l der grandson Manjot Singh, sh e had woken up and came out o f her room. Within her sight, her younger gr a ndson Manpreet Singh, i.e. th e present petiti o ner, who was carrying an iron a xe, struck blows on the perso n of Manjot Singh, due to which he sustained i n juries, blood started oozing out , and he succu m bed to the injuries. She raised a larm and then the petitioner ha d managed to flee. The cause of grudge was t h at the victim had sold one acr e of land in his name about one month back fo r a sum of Rs. 21–22 lakhs and , with her con s ent, was going abroad, wherea s the petitioner was demandin g money from t h e victim.

¶19

A fter registration of FIR, i n vestigation proceedings wer e initiated. Po s t-mortem examination of dead body of the victim wa s conducted. T h e petitioner was arrested on t h e same day. The blood-staine d gandasa used in the crime was recovered fro m him. Investigation now stand s concluded.

¶20

I t is argued by learned counsel f o r the petitioner that he has bee n falsely implic a ted in this case. He has suffered incarceration for a period o f about two an d a half years. The trial will tak e considerable time to conclud e as only 11 ou t of 20 witnesses have been ex a mined so far. The complainant , who was the o nly eye-witness to the alleged occurrence, has been examine d as PW-9, bu t has not implicated the petiti o ner in commission of subjec t offences. The r e is no other circumstance to c o nnect him with the commissio n of offence of murder of the victim. Each d a y spent by him in custody ha s

¶21

AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶22

CRM-M-36328-2026 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

furnished him a new ground afresh to seek c o ncession of bail. His prolonge d incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed unde r Article 21 of t he Constitution of India. He is ready to abide by the terms an d conditions to be imposed upon him. It is, th e refore, argued that the petitio n deserves to b e allowed.

¶25

P er contra , learned State cou n sel has argued that there ar e serious alleg a tions against the petitioner. T h e complainant was none othe r than the gran d mother of the petitioner. On a ccount of her resiling from he r previous stat e ment alone, the petitioner h a s not become entitled to b e extended ben e fit of bail. There are various other circumstances, includin g recovery of b lood-stained gandasa at the in s tance of the petitioner and th e dead body of t he victim having been found at his home where he lived, alon g with the pe t itioner, which suggest invo l vement of the petitioner i n commission o f offence of murder of the victim. The present one being a successive petition is not maintainable. T h ere are chances of petitioner' s absconding i f extended benefit of bail. It is hence, argued that the petitio n does not dese r ve to be allowed.

¶26

T his Court has heard the rival submissions made by learne d counsel for th e parties at considerable length. 7. S o far as the question of maint a inability of this petition bein g successive on e is concerned, it may be menti o ned that, an accused has a righ t to move succ e ssive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of th e Court, while e ntertaining such a subsequent b ail application, to consider tha t any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the on e

¶27

AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶28

CRM-M-36328-2026 (O&M) 4

¶29

taken in the e arlier application is made out o r not. It is also required to b e noted that ev e ry day spent by an accused in c ustody provides a new cause o f action for fili n g a bail application under cert a in circumstances. He cannot b e kept in cust o dy for indefinite period an d the bail application can b e considered e v en if it is filed repeatedly. T h e petitioner is alleged to hav e caused homi c idal death of his own broth e r on the intervening night o f 12/13.03.202 4 . The complainant, who claim e d to be the eye-witness of th e occurrence, h a s now turned hostile and has n o t implicated the petitioner whil e appearing as a witness before the learned tria l Court. The petitioner's counse l has also plac e d on record Annexure P-3, cop y of sworn deposition of PW-1 0 Kulwinder S i ngh, village Sarpanch, who h ad been informed about th e incident imm e diately thereafter and had gone to the police to record hi s statement, ho w ever, he too has not implicate d the petitioner in commission o f subject offen c es. The petitioner is in custody for a period of about two year s and six mo n ths. The trial will take ti m e to conclude. Taking int o consideration the nature of the evidence whic h has come on record, the perio d spent by the p etitioner in custody, and the at t endant facts and circumstances , but without m eaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, thi s Court is of th e considered opinion that the p e titioner has made out a case fo r grant of bail. A ccordingly, the petition is allo w ed and the petitioner is ordere d to be release d on bail subject to his furnis h ing personal as well as suret y bonds to t h e satisfaction of the learn e d trial Court/Chief Judicia l Magistrate/D u ty Magistrate concerned.

¶30

AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶31

CRM-M-36328-2026 (O&M)

¶32

¶33

S ince the main petition has been allowed, pending application, i f

¶34

any, is render e d infructuous.

¶35

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

¶36

10.09.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No

¶37

AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Manpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases