Gurpreet Singh Alias Kaddi and Another Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Gurpreet Singh Alias Kaddi and Another Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail under Section 483 BNSS granted to both petitioners, subject to furnishing bail bonds with two sureties of Rs.1 lakh each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and compliance with the imposed conditions; liberty to the State to seek cancellation of bail on breach.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, accused in FIR No. 107 dated 11.05.2025 under Sections 331(6), 118(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS (as amended) at Police Station Sadar Mansa, are entitled to bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

Court's answer

Bail granted: the petitioners, in custody since 17.5.2025 with clear past antecedents (not involved in any other criminal case), deserve a lenient view as the possibility of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote; their further incarceration would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and against the principle that bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram.

Ratio / Principle

Petitioners granted the concession of bail subject to furnishing bail bonds along with two surety bonds of Rs.1 lakh each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, and to conditions including: no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; not leaving the country without prior permission of the trial Court; not committing a similar offence; furnishing addresses and mobile number to the trial Court; and appearance before the trial Court on each and every date fixed unless exempted.

Key takeaways

Petition allowed; in case of breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted by this order.ratio¶43
The observations made are limited to the present (bail) proceedings and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case; the trial shall proceed independently of them (merits expressly left open).obiter¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — S.483 BNSS — Petitioners (brothers) accused in FIR No. 107 dated 11.05.2025, PS Sadar Mansa, under Ss.331(6), 118(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190 BNS (S.118(2) added vide rapat No. 46 dated 25.6.2025; S.331(6) deleted and S.331(7) added vide rapat No. 19 dated 15.7.2025); bail application dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Mansa on 8.7.2025 — In custody since 17.5.2025; no other criminal antecedents; challan filed but no prosecution witness examined and completion of trial in near future remote — Further incarceration violative of Article 21 of the Constitution (right to speedy trial) and against the principle that 'Bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception' as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram (2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131) — Bail granted subject to bail bonds with two sureties of Rs.1 lakh each and conditions (no tampering with evidence, no intimidation of witnesses, no leaving the country without permission, appearance on every date) — Observations confined to bail proceedings; no opinion expressed on merits; State at liberty to seek cancellation on breach of conditions.

CRM-M-44569-2025 -1-

I N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN J AB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI G ARH

234 CRM-M-44569-2025 Date of Decision: 16.01.2026

Gurpreet Singh @ Kaddi and another …Petitioners. v. State of P unjab …Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.

Present: Mr. Sukhpreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Gautam Thapar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

Petitioners, who are accu s ed in case FIR No. 107 d a ted 11.05.20 2 5, registered against them fo r offences under Sections 331(6), 118(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS (Se c tion 118(2) of BNS added late r on vide rapa t No. 46 dated 25.6.2025 and S ection 331(6) deleted and Sec t ion 331(7) o f BNS added vide rapat No. 19 dated 15.7.2025), at Police Sta t ion Sadar M a nsa, have filed the present peti t ion under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of b ail.

Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on recor d be noticed h e reinbelow:-

Amritpal Singh, son of G eja Singh, resident of Dule w al, Labourer by profession, set the criminal l aw in motion by filing a compl a int pointing t herein that his father had die d about 8 years ago. They are f ive brothers a nd sisters. All his sisters are m arried. He is not married an d is residing w ith his mother. On 9.5.2025, h is sister Ramandeep Kaur and his nephew K arandeep Singh were visiting t hem. He along with other fa m ily members were talking with each other i n the courtyard of their house. At

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-44569-2025 -2-

about 10 . 30 PM, Bhola Singh, residen t of Sardulgarh, who was earlier known to him (c), knocked at the main g a in of his house. When he switc h ed on the li g ht and opened the window of th e gate, he heard Gurpreet Sing h @ Kaddi (p e titioner No.1) and Rajwinder S i ngh @ Kala (petitioner No.2), b oth sons of M ithu Singh, raising lalkara that today he (c) be not spared. Be f ore he could react, aforementioned Gurpre e t Singh (P1), Bhola Singh, R a njit Singh an d other four unknown persons b arged in their house. At the s aid time, the y all were armed with weapons. While mentioning the sequenc e of events, c o mplainant pointed out that G u rpreet Singh @ Kaddi (P1), w ho was arm e d with ‘Sword’, hit him on his fo rehead. Rajwinder Singh @ K ala (P2), wh o was also armed with a ‘Gan d asi’, hit him on the left side o f his head. Ranjeet Singh @ Ghona also gave a sword blow on the left side o f his head. H e tried to save himself and raise d his left hand when in the proc e ss, injured h i s four fingers. Bhola Singh, as per complainant, gave him a b l ow with an iron chain on his right should e r. Shockingly enough, the fe m ale members of the family were not spared , who also suffered injuries in the incident. Towards the end, complain a nt pointed out the reason of the assault a n d maintained that Gurpreet Si n gh (P1) suspected that he (c) h ad influence d Gurpreet Singh’s wife to in d ulge in extra marital affair w ith another p erson. In this context, though he had already assured Gurp r eet Singh (P 1 ) that he is innocent but no h eed was paid. Based on the s aid complain t and medico legal reports of a ll the three injured, a formal c ase vide FIR N o. 107 dated 11.05.2025, was r egistered against them for offe n ces under Se c tions 331(6), 118(1), 115(2), 1 9 1(3), 190 of BNS (Section 118(2 ) of BNS add e d later on vide rapat No. 46 d ated 25.6.2025 and Section 33 1 (6) deleted a nd Section 331(7) of BNS a dded vide rapat No. 19 d a ted 15.7.202 5 ), at Police Station Sadar Mans a .

Investigations were set in m otion during which the opinio n of the treat i tatements of the witnesses w ere ng doctor was sought and s recorded. Both the petitioners-accused w ho were named in the FIR a nd specific r oles were attributed to them, w ere arrested on 17.5.2025. It is further t h e case of the prosecution t h at during interrogation, both the

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-44569-2025 -3-

petitione r s confessed to their involvemen t in the crime and got recovered the f offence. weapons o

Application for grant of b a il filed by the petitioners u n der Section 483 of BNSS was dismissed by t he learned Sessions Judge, Ma n sa, vide orde r een dated 8.7.2025. Aggrieved of the same, present petition has b filed. 3. Learned counsel for the peti t ioners submits that the petition e rs, who are brothers and neighbourers o f complainant have been fal s ely implicate d in the present case. Unexplai n ed delay of two days in lodging the FIR sug g ests that the facts have been t w isted and a coloured version has s a been put forth by the complainant, who though introduced himself a labourer, but in fact is a well known an t i social figure of the area, wh o is known t o extend threats to the people a nd openly flaunts weapons on his social m e ns. dia account just to create te r ror in the minds of the pers o on Photogra p hs said to have been upload e d by the complainant himself social m e dia, appended as Annexure P - 2, have also been referred to by learned c o unsel. It is further the conten t ion of learned counsel that tho u gh in the co m ne plaint, complainant alleged that both the brothers had given o blow eac h on his head, but the medico legal report does not corroborate t his version, w herein only one injury on t h e head of complainant has been mentione d . Further, only one of the inj u ries alleged to have been infli c ted by both t h e petitioners has been declare d as ‘Grievous’ in nature, whe r eas the other s have been opined as ‘Simple ’ in nature. The other two fe m ale members of the family only received sup e rficial injuries. Learned counsel next conte n een ds that the petitioners have b falsely n a med in the FIR. The very fa c t that complainant injured him s elf

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-44569-2025 -4-

absconde d from the hospital during his t reatment, further raises a doub t on the genui n eness of the story put forth by h im.

The last leg of submission raised by learned counsel is t hat investiga t ions qua petitioners are comple t e, as challan has already been fi l ed, but the p o ssibility of trial being completed in the near future is quite rem o te, for none o f prosecution witnesses have b e en examined, in light thereof, t h eir (Ps) furt h er incarceration would not onl y be violative of their rights u n der Article 2 1 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial but would a l so be against the principle o f “Bail is a general rule a nd incarcer a tion is an exception”.

Per contra, while opposing t he request for grant of bail, lear n ed State cou n sel contends that the petitioners, who are brothers, unleashe d an attack no t on only on complainant, who su f fered grievous injuries but also the other female members of his famil y , thus, no leniency deserves to be extended in their favour, for if release d on bail, the likelihood of t h em fleeing fr o m the process of justice by no t appearing in the Court, overa w ing complain a nt and other related witnesses who have not been examined till date, is q u ite high. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for. 5. Heard learned counsel f o r the parties and perused the documen t s on record.

Factual aspects of the case l e ading to the registration of the F IR and the r o les of the petitioners have alr e ady been noticed in para 2 of the order. I n view of submissions adva n ced by learned counsel for the petitione r s, but without expressing any o p inion on the merits of the case, the Court is o ce f the opinion that the petitioners who have been in custody si n 17.5.202 5 and whose past antecedents a r e quite clear in the sense that t h ey

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-44569-2025 -5-

are not in v olved in any other criminal case, lenient view deserves to be ta k en in their f a ear vour, more so, when the possi b ility of completion of trial in n future is q uite remote, their further incar c eration would not only be viola t ive of his rig h ts under Article 21 of the Con s titution of India, including rig h t to speedy tr i al but would also be against the principle of “Bail is a general r ule and inca r ceration is an exception” as h eld by Hon’ble Supreme Cour t in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R.

(Criminal) 131.

Resultantly, petitioners ar e granted the concession of b ail um subject t o their furnishing bail bonds alo n g with two surety bonds in the s of Rs.1 l a kh each to the satisfaction of l earned trial Court/Duty Magist r ate concerne d . The petitioners shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioners will n o t tamper with the evidence du r ing the trial.

(ii) The petitioners will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioners shall n ot leave the country without p r ior permission of the trial Court .

(iv) The petitioners shall n ot commit an offence similar to the offence of which, they are a c cused, or for commission of w h ich they are suspected of.

(v) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly coe r ce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to d i ssuade them from disclosing s u ch facts to the Court or to an y police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioners shall not in any manner misuse t h eir liberty.

(vii) The petitioners shall f urnish their addresses and mo b ile number to the Trial Court f orthwith and shall not change the

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-44569-2025 -6-

same till the conclusion of t h e trial and in case for any rea s on, the petitioners seek to cha n ge any of the aforesaid, the s a me shall be done only with pr i or intimation to the learned Tr ial Court, stating the reason for the same. (viii) The petitioners will a pp ear before the trial Court on e a ch and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific orde r of Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any o t her condition, as deemed a p propriate while releasing the petitioners.

Accordingly, the present pet i tion is allowed and it is made c l ear that in ca s e there is any breach of the afo r esaid conditions, the State shal l be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail a s granted to the petitioners by t his order.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein ar e limited for the purpose of pre s ent proceedings and would no t be construe d as an opinion on the merits of t he case and the trial would proceed s. independ e ntly of the aforesaid observatio n

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 16.01.20 2 6 JUDGE gbs Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document