Allowed¶26

Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Mar 2026CRM-M/8553/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail granted; S.483 BNSS 2023 petition; FIR 158/2024 PS Sardulgarh Distt. Mansa; murder/homicide BNS 2023 Ss.103(1), 324(4)(5)(6), 61(2), 191(3), 190, 189(4); circumstantial evidence case; accused not named in FIR; implication on suspicion of deceased's brother; disclosure statement recovery of wooden stick; parity with bailed co-accused Ishwar Chand (28.11.2025); custody one year five months five days; delayed trial; CRM-M Punjab & Haryana; Justice Mandeep Pannu; bail allowed without merit comments; Panchayat election background.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner Ravi Kumar ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate; all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶26

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned in FIR No. 158/2024 (PS Sardulgarh, District Mansa) in a case resting primarily on circumstantial evidence, deserves grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The prosecution case is primarily based upon circumstantial evidence; the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his involvement surfaced subsequently during investigation on the basis of suspicion and the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him, pursuant to which the alleged weapon recovery was effected.

¶22

Key takeaways

Parity and prolonged detention weighed with the Court: co-accused Ishwar Chand, stated to be on similar footing, had already been granted regular bail vide order dated 28.11.2025; the petitioner had been in custody for one year, five months and five days and the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.ratio¶25
Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail; the petition is allowed and the petitioner Ravi Kumar is ordered released on regular bail subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Mandeep Pannu J., oral) allowed a first regular-bail petition under S.483 Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by Ravi Kumar, an accused in FIR No.158 dated 02.10.2024, PS Sardulgarh, District Mansa, registered under Ss.103(1), 324(4)(5)(6), 61(2), 191(3), 190 and 189(4) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 concerning the homicidal death of Radhey Sham around Panchayat-election nominations. The Court noted the prosecution case rests primarily on circumstantial evidence: the petitioner was not named in the FIR, was nominated on suspicion raised by the deceased's brother, and the wooden stick allegedly used was recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement. Parity with co-accused Ishwar Chand (granted bail vide order dated 28.11.2025), custody of one year, five months and five days, and a trial likely to take considerable time led the Court to grant regular bail subject to bail/surety bonds, expressly without commenting on merits.

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M-8553-2026 (O&M)

¶3

205

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

-.-

¶6

CRM-M-8553-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.03.2026

Ravi Kumar

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ....Respondent

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

¶12

Present: Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate fo r the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG Punjab.

¶14

-.-

¶15

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

¶16

Th i s is the first petition under S e ction 483 of the Bharatiya N y aya Suraksha Sanhi t a, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the present petitioner in FIR N o. 158 dated 02. 1 0.2024 registered under Sections 103(1), 324(4) (5)(6), 61(2), 191(3), 190 an d 189(4) of the Bharatiya Nya y a Sanhita, 2023 at Police Sta t ion Sardulgarh, Dis t rict Mansa.

¶17

Br i ef facts of the case, as eman a ting from the record, are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the st a tement of the complainant Ab h ey Ram, who alleged that Panchayat elections wer e to take place in village Sardul g arh and nominatio n forms were being scrutinize d . It was alleged that the vi c tim Radhey Sham h ad left in his car during the ni g ht and the next morning his d ead body was fou n d lying in the car near the s p orts stadium of the village. T he complainant su s pected that certain persons, in c luding the present petitioner al o ng with other co-a c cused, had conspired and cause d the homicidal death of the vic t im. During investigation, the petitioner was nomi n ated as an accused on the basi s of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-8553-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶19

suspicion raise d by the brother of the deceased a nd he was subsequently arreste d . It is alleged that t he petitioner suffered a disclo s ure statement during investiga t ion and pursuant t hereto a wooden stick alleg e dly used in the occurrence w as recovered. Th e case of the prosecution pr i marily rests upon circumsta n tial evidence.

¶20

Le a rned counsel for the petition e r contends that the petitioner has been falsely im p licated in the present case. It i s submitted that the petitioner w as not named in t h e FIR and his involvement sur fa ced only on the basis of suspi c ion raised by the b r other of the deceased. It is fur t her contended that the case of the prosecution re s ts upon circumstantial evide n ce and the petitioner has been implicated on t h e basis of disclosure statemen t allegedly suffered by him du r ing investigation. T he alleged recovery of the we a pon has also been effected on the basis of the sa i d disclosure statement. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in c ustody for the last one year, fiv e months and five days and the t rial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

¶21

Pe r contra , learned State coun s el has opposed the present b ail application on t he ground that serious allegati o ns have been levelled against the petitioner in th e present case and, therefore, he does not deserve the concessio n of regular bail.

¶22

Af t er hearing learned counsel for t he parties and perusing the rec o rd, this Court is o f the considered view that the case of the prosecution is primarily based upon cir c umstantial evidence and the pe t itioner was not named in the F IR. His involveme n t surfaced subsequently duri n g investigation on the basis of suspicion and t he disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him. The alle g ed recovery of w e apon has also been effecte d pursuant to the said disclo s ure

¶23

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-8553-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶25

statement. It is also not disputed that a co-acc u sed, namely Ishwar Chand, wh o is stated to be on s imilar footing, has already bee n granted the concession of reg u lar bail by this Co u rt vide order dated 28.11.2025. T he petitioner is also in custody for the last one y e ar, five months and five da y s and the trial is likely to take considerable ti m e to conclude.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and wit h out commenting u p on the merits of the case, thi s Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deser v es the concession of regular ba i l. 7. Ac c ordingly, the present petition i s allowed and the petitioner R avi Kumar is order e d to be released on regular bai l subject to his furnishing adeq u ate bail bonds/sur e ty bonds to the satisfaction o f the concerned trial Court/ D uty Magistrate.

¶27

However, nothing stated herein a bove shall be construed as an

¶28

expression of o p inion on the merits of the case.

¶29

Al l pending miscellaneous applica t ion(s), if any, stands disposed o f .

¶30

March 13, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whethe r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Whethe r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶31

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Resham Singh Vs State of Haryana

Mukesh Vs State of Punjab

Aditya Garg Vs State of Punjab

Kartik Vs State of Haryana

Surinder Singh @ Judge and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Mukesh Yadav @ Sonu Vs State of Haryana