Ram Lubhaya Vs State of Punjab

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiy a Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitione r in case bearing FIR No.0122 d ated 18.11.2025, registered for the offences p unishable under Sections 103, 109, 324(4), 190, 191(3) of B N S and Secti o ns 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Ar m s Act, 1959 at Police Station C ity Banga, D i strict SBS Sagar.

¶14

The prosecution case, as set - out in the petition in hand, is that on 17.11.2025, the complainant namel y Pawandeep Singh alias Ba b bu Maan w a s present at his shop. At abo u t 03:00 PM, his brother namely Harpreet S ingh alias Honey Bal along wi t h his associates was going towards Phagwar a in his Scorpio car. It has been further alleged by the complainant that his b rother Harpreet Singh honey w as driving the car and when t h ey reached n ear Ritha Ram School, some p e rsons who were travelling in a n i- AJAY KUMAR2026.07.10 14:27 20 car allegedly opened fire on his brother and in an attempt to escape, the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-3703-2026 2

¶16

brother d r ove the car towards Banga Bus Stand area. Owing to heavy tra ff ic, the car o f his brother got struck in traffi c jam and the assailants, therea ft er, intercept e d the vehicle and indiscriminat e ly fired gunshots at its occupa n ts. As a con s equence of the firing, multiple persons sustained firearm inju r ies and two p ersons i.e., Rimplejit Singh a n d Harpreet Singh alias Honey B al (brother o f FIR-complainant) succumb e d to their injuries. The FIR h ad initially n amed Ajay Kumar son of the p resent petitioner and certain ot h er accused p ersons as active participants i n the attack. However, during the course of investigation, statements of the complainant and injured witnesses were rec o rded and it had surfaced that prior to the occurrence there had b e en an alterc a tion between Sahil Bholu and t h e accused side on 15.11.2025. T he investiga t ion further reflect that the pre s ent petitioner, along with his s on Ajay Ku m ar and other associates, had all e gedly participated in the meeti n gs wherein t he conspiracy to attack the complainant party was allege d ly hatched. C onsequently, vide DDR No.1 6 dated 27.11.2025, the petitio n er came to b e nominated as an accused in th e present case. 3. Learned senior counsel for t he petitioner has iterated that the petitione r has been falsely implicated in t he FIR in question. Learned se n ior counsel has further iterated that the petiti o ner was not named in the FIR a nd no overt a ct has been attributed to him t h erein. Learned senior counsel h as further c o ntended that the petitioner has b een nominated solely on the b a sis of a sup p lementary statement recorded after a considerable delay which renders t he prosecution version highl y doubtful. It has been furt h er contende d that the petitioner is a 66-year-old senior citizen having cl e an AJAY KUMAR antecede n ts and has no criminal hist o ry. Learned senior counsel h as 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-3703-2026 3

¶18

emphasiz e d that the petitioner has spen t more than two decades work i ng abroad a n d, after returning to India, has been engaged in social and religi o us activities in his village. Learned senior c o unsel has further asserted that the petitione r was never present at the spot o f occurrence and no recovery h as been eff e cted from him. Learned seni o r counsel also contends that the petitione r has been implicated only because he is the father of the main accused n amely Ajay Kumar. It has bee n further contended that there is no motive w h atsoever for the petitioner to c o mmit the alleged offence. Lear n ed senior c o unsel has further submitted that the investigation has b e en complete d and challan has already bee n presented before the competent Court of j urisdiction. According to learn e d senior counsel, the petitione r is stated to b e in custody since 27.11.2025 a nd has undergone incarceration for a substantial period of time. As the co n clusion of trial is likely to tak e a consider a ble amount of time and, there f ore, no useful purpose would be served f r om continued incarceration o f the petitioner. Learned se n ior counsel has emphasized that the petitione r has clean antecedents and ther e is no likelihood of his absconding or tampe r ing with the prosecution evide n ce. On the s t rength of aforesaid submissio n s, the grant of petition in han d is entreated for.

¶19

Per contra , learned State c o unsel has vehemently opposed the grant of b ail to the petitioner by argui n g that the offence in questio n is extremel y grave in nature involving a p re-planned attack resulting in the death of t wo persons and firearm injurie s to several others. Referring to the status re p ort dated 13.05.2026 by way o f an affidavit of Harjit Singh, P P S, AJAY KUMAR Deputy S u perintendent of Police, Sub D i vision Banga, District SBS Na g ar, 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-3703-2026 4

¶21

learned S t ate counsel has iterated that du r ing the course of investigation the role of t he petitioner has surfaced th r ough the statements of mate r ial witnesses, which disclose his involve m ent in the criminal conspir a cy allegedly hatched against the complain a nt party. The relevant part of the status report reads thus:

¶22

“10. ROLE OF THE PETITION E R

¶23

That the deponent humbly submit s that the petitioner has been specific a lly named in the supplementary sta t ement of the complainant as well a s in the statements of other inju r ed persons. During the course of investigation, it has been reveale d that on 15.11.2025, an altercation took place between the injured Sahil @ Bholu and accused Saurav Kumar son of Balwinder Kumar regarding c ollision of a scooty. On the same d ay, accused Ajay Kumar and his f ather, namely Ram Lubhaya (pre s ent petitioner), extended threats to t h e injured Sahil @ Bholu. It was fur t her revealed during investigation th a t on the next day, i.e., 16.11.2025, the injured Sahil @ Bholu and th e brother of the complainant, na m ely Harpreet Singh @ Honey Ba l , along with other accused pers o ns, gathered at the bus stand for a c ompromise. The injured Sahil @ B h olu was asked to tender an apology, but he refused to do so. Thereupon, all the accused, including the prese n t petitioner/Ram Lubhaya in conniv a nce with each other, hatched a crimi n al conspiracy to attack Harpreet Si n gh (brother of the complainant) an d Sahil @ Bholu. During the cours e of investigation, the petitioner also made a disclosure statement before the investigating officer, wherein h e disclosed that on 17.11.2025, his son Ajay Kumar called the other me m bers of his group at Kashmiri Dh a ba, Mazari, and planned an attack o n Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal and S a hil @ Bholu. Thereafter, Ajay Ku mar (main shooter) along with his accomplices proceeded towards the shop of the complainant in a car bearing registration No. PB-32 -A A-7878, whereas the petitioner al o ng with accused Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi went in another car bea r ing registration No. PB-32-B-0582. The petitioner further disclosed tha t at the instance of his son Ajay Ku m ar and his accomplices, he, along w ith Charanjit Singh @ Channi, Har p reet Singh @ Happy, Shubham Shar m a, and Matloof Khan, conducted re c ce of Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal a nd others in the area of Mukandpur R oad, Banga. 11. CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS OF PETITIONER:

¶24

AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-3703-2026 5

¶26

That the deponent humbly subm i ts from the verification of record o f the petitioner, it has been reveale d that except the present FIR No. 1 22 (supra), the petitioner is not invo l ved in any other criminal case. 12. That the deponent humbly s u bmits that there are specific and g r ave allegations against the petitione r . The petitioner, in connivance with his son and other accused persons, p repared a plan and then facilitate d to execute the criminal plan hatche d by his son Ajay Kumar. The son o f the petitioner and his accomplices o p ened fire in a public place, resultin g in the death of two youths. The inv e stigation of the case is still ongoing, the main shooters are yet to be arrested, and the weapons used in the off e nce are yet to be recovered. It is f urther submitted that the material/ s tar witnesses of the prosecution a r e yet to be examined. It is a set t led principle of law that a fair trial requires that the complainant and o t her witnesses depose in a free and fe a rless atmosphere, without any threat or coercion. There exists a grave a n d reasonable apprehension that, in the event of the petitioner being rele a sed on bail, he may attempt to over a we or influence the complainant an d other prosecution witnesses or ta m per with the evidence collected by th e investigating agency.” Raising submission in tande m with the aforesaid reply, lear n ed State cou n sel has submitted that in vie w of the seriousness of the offe n ce, there is a strong likelihood that if rel e ased on bail, the petitioner m ay influence or intimidate the prosecution w itnesses, who belong to the same locality a nd thereby hamper the trial . In view of the nature of the allegatio n s, the gravity of the offence a n d the stage of trial learned S t ate counsel p r ays for the dismissal of the inst a nt petition. 5. I have heard learned coun s el for the rival parties and h a ve perused t h e available record. 6. The grant of bail falls with i n the discretionary domain of the Court; h o wever, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious a nd principle d manner, ensuring it aligns wi t h established legal precedents a nd the interests of justice. While considerin g a bail application, the Court m ust AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27I attest to the accuracy andevaluate f actors such as the existence o f prima facie evidence implicat i ng integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-3703-2026 6

¶28

the accus e d, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severit y of the likel y sentence upon conviction. T he Court must also assess the likelihoo d of the accused absconding or e vading the due process of law, the probabili t y of the offence being repeate d and any reasonable apprehens i on of the a ccused tampering with evi d ence or influencing witnes s es. Addition a lly, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal stand i ng and over a ll conduct of the accused pla y a crucial role. Furthermore, the Court m ust weigh the potential d a nger of bail undermining the administr a tion of justice or thwarting its due course. A profitable refere n ce in this re g ard is made to the judgment pa s sed by the Hon’ble Supreme C o urt titled as State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, relevant whereof reads as un d er:

¶29

14. It is well settled that the m atters to be considered in an applica t ion for bail are (i)whether there is an y prima facie or reasonable groun d to believe that the accused had commit t ed the offence; (ii) nature and gravit y of the charge; (iii) severity of the pu n ishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or f l eeing if released on bail; (v) chara c ter, behaviour, means, position and stan d ing of the accused;(vi) likelihood o f the offence being repeated; (vii) reason a ble apprehension of the witnesses b e ing tampered with; and (viii) danger, o f course, of justice being thwarte d by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179 ). While a va g ue allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the ac c used is of such character that his m ere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is materia l to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refuse d . We may also refer to the follo w ing principles relating to grant or ref u sal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in regard to grant o r refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner a nd

¶30

AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CRM-M-3703-2026 7

¶32

not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a deta i led examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, ther e is a need to indicate in such or d ers reasons for prima facie concluding w hy bail was being granted particul a rly where the accused is charged of h a ving committed a serious offence. A ny order devoid of such reasons would s uffer from non-application of mind. I t is also necessary for the court gra n ting bail to consider among o t her circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in cas e of conviction and the nature of support i ng evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension of tam p ering with the witness or apprehen s ion of threat to the complainant.

¶33

c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (see Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338. "

¶34

This Court also in specific terms h eld that :

¶35

"the condition laid down under secti o n 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for gran t ing bail even under section 439 of the C ode. In the impugned order it is not i ced that the High Court has given the p e riod of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near futur e as grounds sufficient to enlarge the ac c used on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offence s punishable with life imprisonmen t or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain per i od of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to b e concluded in the near future eithe r by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence allege d is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail."

¶36

In Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, 2005(1) Apex Criminal 319 : 2005(1) RCR(Criminal) 712 (SC) : 2005(3) SCC 143, this C o urt observed :

¶37

“The object underlying the canc e llation of bail is to protect the fair t rial and secure justice being done t o the society by preventing the acc u sed who is set at liberty by the bail o r der from tampering with the evidenc e in the heinous crime..... It hardly requires to be stated that once a perso n is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is q u ite

¶38

AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CRM-M-3703-2026 8

¶40

stringent and deterrent, the ac c used in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in v arious activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threateni n g the family members of the dece a sed victim and also create problems of law and order situation.” 7. The factual matrix of the c a se, as emerging from the FIR a nd the mate r ial collected during the course of investigation, reflects that the occurren c e in question is a broad dayligh t firing incident allegedly executed by a gro u p of armed assailants who cha s ed the vehicle of the complainant party an d opened indiscriminate fire in a public area which resulted in the death of t wo individuals and serious fir e arm injuries to others. The nat u re and man n er of the offence, at this stage, reflect a grave and heinous cri m e. Though t he petitioner was not named in the FIR in question but his subseque n t nomination cannot be brushe d aside at this stage merely on that ground. T he material collected during t h e course of investigation indic a tes that the p etitioner has been attributed a role in the events prior to the occurren c e. The prosecution case is that o n 15.11.2025 the petitioner, al o ng with his s on Ajay Kumar, had threatened Sahil Bholu. The investigation h as further r e flected that the petitioner wa s part of the chain of events that ultimatel y led to the commission of the o ffence. Whether these allegati o ns are ultim a tely proved or not is a matte r of trial; however, at the stage of consider a tion of bail, this Court is not re q uired to meticulously examine the evidentia r y value of such material but only to see whether a prima facie c a se is made out.

¶41

The plea of the petitioner th a t petitioner is a senior citizen a nd was not p resent at the scene of occurrenc e also does not persuade this C o urt at this st a ge. The allegations leveled a g ainst the petitioner are grave a nd

¶42

AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

CRM-M-3703-2026 9

¶44

specific w hich clearly indicate his active participation in the commissio n of the crim e . The occurrence in question has resulted in the death of t wo persons a nd injuries to several victims. In the considered opinion of t his Court, t h e very magnitude and seriou s ness of the crime disentitles the petitione r to the discretionary relief of b a il. The gravity of the offence a nd the mann e r in which it has been committ e d are relevant considerations w h ile exercisin g discretion under Section 483 o f BNSS. In the considered opin i on of this C o urt, at this stage, no accentuat i ng circumstances have been m a de which m a y prima facie constitute a compelling ground for the grant of regular b ail to the petitioner, especial l y in light of the gravity of the allegatio n s and the evidence on record. I t is also to be borne in mind that offences o f this nature strike at the ver y root of public order and soci e tal conscien c e. Granting bail in such cases would not only undermine the gravity o f the offence but may also emb o lden the accused. Furthermore, the apprehen s ion expressed by the State th a t the petitioner may influence the witnesses, who belong to the same lo c ality, also cannot be said to be unfounde d . The seriousness of the accu s ations, the nature of the offe n ce, and the m anner in which it is alleged to have been committed are relevant consider a tions while adjudicating a praye r for grant of regular bail.

¶45

In view of the gravity of th e offence, the nature of allegati o ns, the role a t tributed to the petitioner during investigation, and the overall f a cts and circu m stances of the case, this Cou r t is of the considered opinion that the petiti o ner is not entitled to the conces s ion of regular bail.

¶46

In view of the prevenient rat i ocination, it is ordained thus:

¶47

AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

CRM-M-3703-2026 10

¶49

(i) The present petition is d evoid of merits and is her e by dismisse d .

¶50

(ii) Any observations made and / or submissions noted hereinab o ve shall not h ave any effect on merits of th e case and the investigating age n cy as also th e trial Court shall proceed furth e r, in accordance with law, with o ut being inf l uenced with this order.

¶51

(iii) Pending application(s), if an y , shall also stand disposed of.

¶52

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

¶53

July 09, 2 026 Ajay

¶54

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

¶55

AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.10 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Lubhaya v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lubhaya 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

Preeti Vs State of Haryana

Rabendra Kumar Patel Vs State of Ut Chandigarh

Mahesh Kumari W/O Praveen Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Naresh Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Arshad Alias Dholu Vs State of Haryana

Karandeep Singh Alias Karan Vs State of Punjab