Gurbinder Singh Alias Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
-1-
CRM-M No.51884 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
311
CRM-M No.51884 of 2026
Date of decision: 30.10.2026
Gurbhinder Singh alias Bhupinder Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Rohit Jindal, Advocate and
Ms. Gagandeep Kaur Dhillon, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
*
MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-
1. The instant one is the third petition as filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short
“BNSS”) seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.57 dated
15.09.2019 registered under Sections 302, 380, 148 and 149 of IPC and
Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (For short “Act, 1959”) (Sections 54
and 59 of Act, 1959 wrongly mentioned in head note) at Police Station Sarai
Amant Khan, District Tarn Taran. The previous two petitions as filed by the
petitioner had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.04.2021 and
23.12.2021 respectively.
2. As per the allegations, on 15.09.2019, the victims Amandeep
Singh and his wife Amanpreet Kaur were going towards their house on their
motorbike after paying obeisance at Gurudwara. The complainant Harmanjeet
MANJU
2026.10.31 16:41
Singh was following them on a separate motorbike. While on the way,
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh
-2-
CRM-M No.51884 of 2026
Amandeep Singh and his wife were intercepted by the petitioner and co-
accused Surjit Singh, Mewa Singh, Harwinder Singh and Amarjit Singh who
were accompanied by 4-5 more persons. They opened an assault upon the
victims, fired shots at them with firearms, had forcibly shifted both the victims
in their car and threw their dead bodies on the way. On the statement of
complainant, the aforementioned FIR was registered. The cause of grudge was
that Amanpreet Kaur had performed love marriage with the victim Amandeep
Singh. Her cousin brothers were not happy with this marriage and had hatched
conspiracy to kill the victims. After registration of FIR, investigation
proceedings were initiated. The petitioner who was taken into custody in some
other case was joined into investigation after securing his presence by way of
issuance of production warrants and was arrested on 04.10.2019. He suffered
disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered
one Swift car used at the time of occurrence. Two countrymade pistols were
also got recovered by him. On the basis of his disclosure, Manjit Singh was
nominated as an accused and offence under Section 120-B of IPC was added.
Subsequently, Manjit was declared innocent and offence under Section 120-B
of IPC was deleted. Three persons named as accused i.e. Surjit Singh, Mewa
Singh and Amarjit Singh were found to be innocent. They have now been
summoned under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. (which corresponds with Section 213
of BNSS). Investigation now stands concluded.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of over 07 years.
MANJU
2026.10.31 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh
Each day spent by him in custody has given a reason afresh to him to seek
-3-
CRM-M No.51884 of 2026
concession of bail. The allegations against him are vague and general in nature.
There was inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police. A false
recovery has been attributed to him. The chances of conclusion of trial in near
future are bleak as only 05 out of 40 prosecution witnesses had been examined
so far. Now after allowing of application under Section 193 of Cr.P.C., fresh
trial has commenced and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time.
His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right as
guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India to release on bail. The
delay is not attributable to him at all. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves
to be extended benefit of bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition
being a successive petition is not maintainable. The allegations against the
petitioner are serious in nature as he has directly involved in murder of the
two persons. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be
allowed.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
6. So far as the question of maintainability of the petition being third
petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make
successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while
entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and
grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds
which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the
earlier petition are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can
MANJU
2026.10.31 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh
be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC
-4-
CRM-M No.51884 of 2026
458, wherein it was so observed. The petitioner by forming membership of an
unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object
of the abovesaid unlawful assembly is alleged to have assaulted the victims
thereby causing their homicidal death. He has been in custody continuously
since 04.10.2019. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future as
after allowing of application under Section 193 of Cr.P.C., fresh trial has
commenced.
7. It is well settled proposition of law that deprivation of the
personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with the
right guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution of India. Even in cases of
serious offences, where some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot
be avoided, if such period becomes unduly long, the same is against the
fairness assured by Article 21 of the Constitution. In Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra and another , 2024 INSC 645, it had
been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that, howsoever, serious a crime
may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the
Constitution of India. Bail is not to be withheld as punishment. It was also
observed that if the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court
concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of
an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose
the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed, is serious. Article 21
of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. The Hon’ble
MANJU
2026.10.31 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh
Supreme Court had further observed that the over-arching postulate of
-5-
CRM-M No.51884 of 2026
criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless
proven guilty, cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal
law may be and direction was given for release of appellant on bail.
8. Reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab , (1980)
2 SCC 565 to the effect that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of
the accused at the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the
question whether the bail should be granted or refused or whether it is
probable that the party will appear to take its trial and it is indisputable that
the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
9. The question of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay
engaged the attention of Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case cited as
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022)
10 SCC 51, wherein while considering the correct approach towards bail, with
respect to several enactments, it was observed that the provisions contained in
Section 436-A of Criminal Procedure Code which requires inter alia, the
accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified
periods, would apply to Special Acts also in the absence of specific provisions.
10. In view of the discussion as made above with regard to the
position of law and applying the same to the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner
has made out a case for release on bail since his incarceration has been
prolonged and there are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future. As
MANJU
2026.10.31 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh
such, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail
-6-
CRM-M No.51884 of 2026
subject to his furnishing personal bonds as well as surety bonds to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the
following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
(ii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and
every date fixed, unless his presence is exempted by the
learned trial Court.
(iii) He shall provide details of his permanent address as
well as present address before the learned trial Court at the
time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same
without informing the trial Court.
(iv) He shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card
(if any) and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the
learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and
in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes
place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned
trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone
switch on all times.
11. In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned
conditions, the respondent-State shall also be at liberty to move an application
MANJU
2026.10.31 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh
seeking cancellation of the bail.
-7-
CRM-M No.51884 of 2026
12. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no
bearing on the merits of the case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
30.10.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MANJU
2026.10.31 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chandigarh