Kulveer Singh vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-47497-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-47497-2026 (O&M)

Kulveer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 30.10.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 03.11.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 03.11.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan, Advocate and
Mr. B. S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner
in case bearing FIR No. 51 dated 09.06.2026, registered under Sections 105
and 324(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police
Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present
petition are that the FIR was registered on the statement of complainant
Amarjit Singh alleging therein that on 08.06.2026, at about 8:00 PM, he was
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47497-2026 (O&M) 2
following his son Sukhvir Singh on his own motorcycle. Sukhvir Singh was
riding motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-10-ES-8222 along with his
wife Anjana and daughter Hargun Kaur, aged about 5 years. When they
reached Bhullarai Chowk, a Brezza car bearing registration No. PB-36-K-
5903 came from behind at a high speed and hit their motorcycle. As a result
thereof, the motorcycle struck the rear tyre of a stationary Eicher mini truck
bearing registration No. DL-01-MB-0844. All the three persons fell down
and suffered injuries. Thereafter, the driver of the Brezza car hit a Grand
Vitara car bearing registration No. PB-46-AQ-4933 from behind and drove
his car on to the divider. The Grand Vitara, which was being driven by
Tejinderpal Singh, struck the footpath on the left side and its occupants
suffered minor injuries. The driver of the Brezza car was found to be the
petitioner, who was in an inebriated condition. Sukhvir Singh and Hargun
Kaur were declared dead at Civil Hospital, Phagwara, whereas Anjana was
declared dead at Satyam Hospital, Jalandhar. As per the complainant, the
petitioner drove the car at a high speed and in a negligent manner after
consuming liquor, knowing that it could result in grievous injury or death of
someone. The petitioner was arrested and his medical examination was got
conducted, wherein the doctor opined that he was under the influence of
alcohol. His application for grant of regular bail was dismissed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide order dated 06.08.2026. After
completion of investigation, final report against the petitioner was presented
before the Court on 07.09.2026 and presently, he is facing trial.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is a law abiding citizen and has been falsely implicated in this case. Even as
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47497-2026 (O&M) 3
per the prosecution version, the allegations pertain to death caused by a rash
and negligent act, for which the case ought to have been registered under
Section 106 BNS. Section 105 BNS has been invoked only for the reason that
the petitioner was allegedly in an intoxicated condition at the time of the
incident. The alleged consumption of alcohol is not in itself sufficient to
implicate him under this provision, as the knowledge contemplated by
Section 100 BNS has to be established from facts and circumstances. Such
knowledge has to be assessed from the entire factual matrix, including the
manner of driving, speed of the vehicle, road and traffic conditions, visibility,
nature of impact and location of the motorcycle. The impugned order passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge is erroneous and cryptic. The petitioner
is not involved in any other case and has not been declared a proclaimed
offender. He is in custody since 09.06.2026. Investigation stands completed
and final report has been presented, whereas conclusion of trial is likely to
take time. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody
anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and
the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.
4. Status has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State
counsel has argued that there are specific allegations against the petitioner,
who hit the motorcycle of the deceased intentionally, due to which three
persons lost their lives. At the time of occurrence, he was under the influence
of alcohol and alcohol was traced in his medical examination. The doctor
found him to be drowsy, with smell of alcohol in his breath, slurred speech,
unsteady gait and impaired co-ordination (Annexure R-2). Driving in such a
condition amounts to an offence in itself and there is ample evidence against
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47497-2026 (O&M) 4
him. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, he is not entitled to get
benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for
the parties.
6. The petitioner is alleged to have driven the Brezza car under the
influence of alcohol at a high speed and to have hit the motorcycle of Sukhvir
Singh from behind. Sukhvir Singh, his wife Anjana and their daughter
Hargun Kaur, aged about 5 years, lost their lives in the occurrence. He is
further alleged to have hit a Grand Vitara car thereafter, the occupants of
which suffered minor injuries. The allegations are undoubtedly serious and
the loss of three lives, including that of a young child, cannot be viewed
lightly. The main dispute between the parties is whether the case falls under
Section 105 BNS or Section 106 BNS.
7. Section 105 BNS, which corresponds to Section 304 IPC, has
two parts. The first part applies where the act is done with the intention of
causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The second
part applies where the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
death, but without any such intention, and the punishment under it may
extend to ten years. Section 106(1) BNS, which corresponds to Section 304-
A IPC, covers death caused by a rash or negligent act not amounting to
culpable homicide and the punishment under it may extend to five years. In
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rash or negligent driving on a public road,
with the knowledge of its dangerous character and likely effect, may amount
to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if it results in death. It was
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47497-2026 (O&M) 5
also observed that each case has to be decided on its own facts. Where
negligence or rashness is the cause of death and nothing more, Section 304-A
IPC may be attracted. However, where the act is preceded by the knowledge
that it is likely to cause death, Section 304 Part II IPC may be attracted.
Reliance can also be placed upon State through P.S. Lodhi Colony, New
Delhi v. Sanjeev Nanda, (2012) 8 SCC 450 , wherein it was held that the
prosecution has to prove, for an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, that
the accused knew his act was likely to cause death. Knowledge was attributed
to the accused in that case as he had driven in an inebriated state after
consuming excessive alcohol, without a licence, at a high speed and in a rash
and negligent manner.
8. These judgments show that a death caused by drunken driving
may fall under Section 304 Part II IPC, now the second part of Section 105
BNS, if the requisite knowledge is established. At the same time, they do not
lay down that every case of driving after consuming alcohol must necessarily
fall under this provision. The observation in Sanjeev Nanda's case (supra)
regarding presumption of knowledge was made in the context of driving
without a licence, at a high speed, after consuming liquor beyond the
permissible limit. The conclusions in Alister Anthony Pareira's case (supra)
and Sanjeev Nanda's case (supra) were also recorded after a full trial and
upon appreciation of evidence. Thus, the question in each case depends upon
the facts established before the trial Court.
9. In the present case, the status report says that the petitioner hit
the motorcycle intentionally and with mala fide intention. However, no
motive or previous connection between the petitioner and the deceased has
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47497-2026 (O&M) 6
been pointed out in support of this assertion. The FIR itself speaks of driving
at a high speed and in a negligent manner after consuming liquor. Prima
facie, therefore, the prosecution case rests upon knowledge and not upon
intention. The status report relies upon the observations of the doctor
regarding the condition of the petitioner, but it does not specify the quantity
of alcohol, if any, found in his blood. It also refers to the arrest of the
petitioner from the spot and does not allege that he tried to flee. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge has observed that voluntary intoxication is no
defence and that the act of the petitioner was imminently dangerous. No
doubt, Section 24 BNS provides that a person in a state of voluntary
intoxication is to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would
have had if he had not been intoxicated. This provision only rules out
intoxication as an excuse and the prosecution would still have to establish the
requisite knowledge from the facts and circumstances of the case. The
argument that drunken driving is an offence in itself also does not settle this
question. Whether the act of the petitioner was merely rash and negligent or
was done with the knowledge contemplated by Section 105 BNS is a matter
to be determined by the trial Court. This would depend upon the evidence
regarding speed of the vehicle, manner of driving, road and traffic conditions,
visibility and nature of impact, including the presence of the stationary mini
truck. It would not be appropriate to express any final opinion on this aspect
at this stage.
10. Gravity of the allegations is no doubt a relevant factor, but it
cannot be the sole ground to keep an accused in custody pending trial for an
indefinite period. The status report itself shows that no other FIR is registered
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47497-2026 (O&M) 7
against the petitioner. He has been in custody since 09.06.2026, i.e. for nearly
five months. Investigation has since been completed and final report has been
presented, due to which the custody of the petitioner is no longer required for
the purpose of investigation. The status report does not express any
apprehension that he would abscond or tamper with the evidence. The case is
at its initial stage and conclusion of trial would obviously take time. Keeping
in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in
custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner
is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing
personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for
cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other
subsequent case.
11. 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.

03.11.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.03 11:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document