Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 796
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). /2025
(@SLP(Crl.) No.1427/2025)
BALJINDER SINGH ALIAS AMAN APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. RESPONDENT(s)
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). /2025
(@SLP(Crl.) No.1743/2025)
J U D G M E N T
Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been preferred by the complainant by
being aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-
35115/2024 (O&M) and CRM-M-36312/2024 (O&M).
3. By the impugned order, the High Court has set aside the
order of the Trial Court declining to grant regular bail to the
respondents herein and consequently, has allowed the petitions
for bail. At this stage itself, it may be mentioned that the
regular bail was sought by the respondents herein with regard
to the FIR No.30 dated 22.03.2023 which was registered under
Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 (Sections 148 and 149 deleted and
Signature Not Verified
Sections 34, 427, 120B added later on) of the Indian Penal
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.06.03
10:56:14 IST
Reason:
1
Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) at Police Station Nangal,
District Rupnagar.
4. The said FIR was registered based on the statement
given by the complainant (hereinafter “appellant”) against
accused No. 1 – Mandeep Singh alias Bhoda and accused No.2-
Narinder Kumar alias Nindi (hereinafter “respondents”).
5. According to the statement of the appellant, he
runs his own crusher under the name 'Sat Sahib' located in the
village Haripur. He purchased land measuring approx. 65 acres
at the village in Taraf Majri, Tehsil Nangal. He has further
stated that abutting to the said land, there is the land of
accused No. 1. The appellant alleged that he received a
telephonic call at about 11.30 p.m. to the effect that the
respondents, accompanied by 7-8 other persons, were using
filthy language against the appellant and trespassed onto his
land by dismantling the barbed wire fencing on his property.
It was further alleged that after receiving the said call, the
appellant along with his driver Anil (hereinafter “deceased”),
Deepak Kumar and Chowkidar Bahadur Singh had gone to the
appellant’s land at Taraf Majri in his Land Cruiser vehicle
when the respondents rammed their Fortuner car into the car of
the appellant. When appellant came out from his car, accused
No. 1 hit the deceased with their car and threw him down. It
was alleged that all the accused persons were armed with
wooden sticks when they stepped out of their car. Accused No.1
gave a wooden stick blow on the head of the deceased whereas
2
accused No.2 inflicted injuries to the deceased and other
persons accompanying the appellant. The appellant witnessed
the entire occurrence but fearing for his life, fled the scene
and later discovered that the respondents took deceased to the
hospital where he was found to be dead.
6. The respondents were arrested in connection with
aforesaid FIR on 23.03.2023 and were sent to judicial custody.
7. The Inspector General (IG) Rupnagar Range, Rupnagar, on
receipt of complaint from Dev Raj (father of accused No. 2)
transferred the investigation in the present matter to
Ms. Darpan Ahluwalia, IPS, Assistant Superintendent of Police,
Sub Division Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
8. A charge sheet was submitted by the SHO, Police Station
Nangal before the competent court on 20.06.2023. The JMIC,
Rupnagar took cognizance and the matter was committed to
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar (hereinafter
“trial court”) for trial and adjudication. Thereafter, a
supplementary charge sheet was filed on 09.10.2023 based on
subsequent investigation conducted by Assistant Superintendent
of Police, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar.
9. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed a petition
(CRM-M-62252-2023) under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) before the High Court
seeking quashing of charge sheet. The High Court by order
dated 15.12.2023 directed the trial court to adjourn the
proceedings beyond the date fixed by the High Court (i.e.
09.01.2024). Being aggrieved, the appellant filed SLP (Crl.)
3
Diary No.15274/2024 before this Court, which was dismissed on
13.05.2024 with liberty to the appellant to move an
application before High Court for early hearing of the main
matter. However, the application filed for that purpose by
the appellant before High Court was dismissed on 16.07.2024.
As such, the interim order passed on 15.12.2023 for
restraining the trial court from proceeding further with trial
proceedings is still in operation.
10. In the above backdrop, the respondents had earlier
preferred an application seeking regular bail under Section
439 of the CrPC before the trial court by way of separate bail
applications bearing Nos. BA-612-2024 (accused No. 1) and
BA-634-2024 (accused No. 2). The same came to be dismissed by
orders dated 21.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 respectively, finding
that accused No. 1 is a habitual offender as eight other
criminal cases have also been registered against him and
keeping in view the gravity of the offences in this case and
the heinous crime alleged to have been committed by the
respondents.
11. Thereafter, the respondents again preferred regular bail
applications bearing Nos. CRM-M-35115/2024 (O&M) (accused No.
1) and CRM-M-36312/2024 (O&M) (accused No. 2) before the High
Court. The High Court allowed the said applications by way of
the common impugned order dated 14.11.2024, thereby enlarging
the respondents on bail. Being aggrieved by the grant of bail,
the appellant-complainant has preferred the instant appeal
before this Court.
4
12. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant,
learned counsel for the first respondent-State and learned
counsel for the respondent-accused(s) at length. We have also
perused the material on record.
13. Appellant’s counsel made a two-fold submissions:
firstly, he drew our attention to the impugned order and
contended that the impugned order is lacking in reasons for
granting relief of bail to the respondents herein inasmuch as
paragraph 12 of the impugned order only records the
submissions in a cryptic manner, the reasoning given in
paragraphs 13 and 14 and consequently, the relief of bail was
granted to the respondents herein.
14. He further submitted that the reasons are erroneous
inasmuch they do not make merit a case for grant of bail. In
this context, it was submitted that the respondents have been,
inter alia, alleged to have committed the offence under
Section 302 IPC, the manner in which the offence was committed
itself is gruesome and was planned and executed in a manner
which reflects that there was a criminal conspiracy amongst
the accused.
15. The Sessions Court rightly declined to grant bail and
the respondent-accused(s) were in jail for a period of one
year and eight months; the chargesheet had been filed and the
supplementary chargesheet had also been filed. However, there
was a challenge made in the High Court in another proceeding
5
which has stayed the trial itself. He therefore, contended
that on the one hand, the respondents-accused have been
granted the relief of bail and on the other hand, there is a
stay of trial. The said orders would require interference at
the hands of this Court inasmuch as the respondents herein
have criminal antecedents and they are not entitled to the
relief of bail having regard to the manner in which the
deceased was put to death. He, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the grant of
bail may be cancelled.
16. Learned counsel for the first respondent-State with
reference to his counter affidavit contended that the State is
supporting the case of the appellant-complainant herein and
therefore, having regard to the merits of the case,
appropriate orders may be made in these appeals.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused(s) submitted
that the High Court has rightly identified the reasons as to
why the respondent-accused(s) are entitled to the relief of
bail, the fact the accused themselves carried the deceased to
the hospital and saw to it that he was given treatment
immediately which shows that there was no criminal intent in
their mind; they further submitted that the High Court has
recorded in detail the submissions of the learned counsel for
the respective parties and has come to a right conclusion and
hence there is no merit in these appeals and the same may be
dismissed.
6
18. We have given our consideration to the arguments advanced
at the bar and we have perused the material on record.
19. We note that, inter alia, the respondent-accused (s) have
been alleged to have committed the offence under Section 302 of
the IPC. It may be a fact that the respondent-accused(s) may
have carried the injured victim, who later died, to the
Hospital but he was actually brought dead to the hospital. This
fact will have to be considered de hors from the fact as to who
actually had committed the offence in the first place in the
instant case. The trial court has rightly noted the said aspect
and declined to grant bail. However, the High Court has set
aside the said order and in a very cryptic reasoning has
granted the relief of bail.
20. In the circumstances, we find that the order of the High
Court calls for interference and therefore, the same is set
aside. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court is
restored.
21. Since the respondent-accused(s) have been on bail
pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.11.2024, we direct them
to surrender before the Court of the Jurisdictional Magistrate
or the concerned Police Station on or before 16.06.2025, who
will take them into custody.
7
22. In case of failure of the accused to surrender on or
before 16.06.2025, the Police concerned shall take steps to
arrest both the accused.
23. In the meanwhile, the respondent-accused(s) shall
deposit their passports at the Police Station, Nangal,
District Rupnagar on or before 19.05.2025.
The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………,J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………………………………,J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 16, 2025
8
REVISED*
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1427/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-11-2024
in CRMM No. 36312/2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh]
BALJNDER SINGH ALIAS AMAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER Respondent(s)
(IA No. 20245/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 20243/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 1743/2025 (II-B)
(IA No. 21934/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 21928/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 16-05-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dev Datt Kamat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv.
Mr. Hruday Bajentri, Adv.
Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.
Mr. VPS Mithewal, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Garg, Adv.
Ms. Varsha Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.
Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv.
Ms. Lara Siddiqui, Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Sarfaraj Ahmed Siddiqui, Adv.
Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR
Ms. Osheen Bhat, Adv.
Mr. Aman Dwivedi, Adv.
9
Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Pushpinder Singh, AOR
Ms. Anurag Rana, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Wadhwani, Adv.
Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv.
Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv.
Ms. Mehak Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
Mr. Yash Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.*
The appeals are allowed and disposed of in terms of
the signed reportable judgment which is placed on the
file.*
In view of the urgency in the matter, the operative
portion of the judgment is released as under:
OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT
In the circumstances, we find that the order of the High
Court calls for interference and, therefore, the same is set
aside. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court is
restored.
Since the respondent-accused(s) have been on bail
pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.11.2024, we direct that
they shall surrender and the police shall take them into
custody on 16.06.2025. In the meanwhile, the respondent-
accused(s) shall deposit their passports at the Police Station,
10
Nangal, District Rupnagar on or before 19.05.2025.
The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
In view of the aforesaid directions, the operative
portion of the judgment is being released today itself.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
11
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1427/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-11-2024
in CRMM No. 36312/2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh]
BALJNDER SINGH ALIAS AMAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER Respondent(s)
(IA No. 20245/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 20243/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 1743/2025 (II-B)
(IA No. 21934/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 21928/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 16-05-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dev Datt Kamat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv.
Mr. Hruday Bajentri, Adv.
Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.
Mr. VPS Mithewal, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Garg, Adv.
Ms. Varsha Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.
Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv.
Ms. Lara Siddiqui, Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Sarfaraj Ahmed Siddiqui, Adv.
Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv.
12
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR
Ms. Osheen Bhat, Adv.
Mr. Aman Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Pushpinder Singh, AOR
Ms. Anurag Rana, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Wadhwani, Adv.
Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv.
Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv.
Ms. Mehak Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
Mr. Yash Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are allowed and disposed of in terms of
the signed judgment.
In view of the urgency in the matter, the operative
portion of the judgment is released as under:
OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT
In the circumstances, we find that the order of the High
Court calls for interference and, therefore, the same is set
aside. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court is
restored.
Since the respondent-accused(s) have been on bail
pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.11.2024, we direct that
they shall surrender and the police shall take them into
custody on 16.06.2025. In the meanwhile, the respondent-
accused(s) shall deposit their passports at the Police Station,
13
Nangal, District Rupnagar on or before 19.05.2025.
The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
In view of the aforesaid directions, the operative
portion of the judgment is being released today itself.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
14
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 796
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). /2025
(@SLP(Crl.) No.1427/2025)
BALJINDER SINGH ALIAS AMAN APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. RESPONDENT(s)
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). /2025
(@SLP(Crl.) No.1743/2025)
J U D G M E N T
Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been preferred by the complainant by
being aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-
35115/2024 (O&M) and CRM-M-36312/2024 (O&M).
3. By the impugned order, the High Court has set aside the
order of the Trial Court declining to grant regular bail to the
respondents herein and consequently, has allowed the petitions
for bail. At this stage itself, it may be mentioned that the
regular bail was sought by the respondents herein with regard
to the FIR No.30 dated 22.03.2023 which was registered under
Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 (Sections 148 and 149 deleted and
Signature Not Verified
Sections 34, 427, 120B added later on) of the Indian Penal
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.06.03
10:56:14 IST
Reason:
1
Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) at Police Station Nangal,
District Rupnagar.
4. The said FIR was registered based on the statement
given by the complainant (hereinafter “appellant”) against
accused No. 1 – Mandeep Singh alias Bhoda and accused No.2-
Narinder Kumar alias Nindi (hereinafter “respondents”).
5. According to the statement of the appellant, he
runs his own crusher under the name 'Sat Sahib' located in the
village Haripur. He purchased land measuring approx. 65 acres
at the village in Taraf Majri, Tehsil Nangal. He has further
stated that abutting to the said land, there is the land of
accused No. 1. The appellant alleged that he received a
telephonic call at about 11.30 p.m. to the effect that the
respondents, accompanied by 7-8 other persons, were using
filthy language against the appellant and trespassed onto his
land by dismantling the barbed wire fencing on his property.
It was further alleged that after receiving the said call, the
appellant along with his driver Anil (hereinafter “deceased”),
Deepak Kumar and Chowkidar Bahadur Singh had gone to the
appellant’s land at Taraf Majri in his Land Cruiser vehicle
when the respondents rammed their Fortuner car into the car of
the appellant. When appellant came out from his car, accused
No. 1 hit the deceased with their car and threw him down. It
was alleged that all the accused persons were armed with
wooden sticks when they stepped out of their car. Accused No.1
gave a wooden stick blow on the head of the deceased whereas
2
accused No.2 inflicted injuries to the deceased and other
persons accompanying the appellant. The appellant witnessed
the entire occurrence but fearing for his life, fled the scene
and later discovered that the respondents took deceased to the
hospital where he was found to be dead.
6. The respondents were arrested in connection with
aforesaid FIR on 23.03.2023 and were sent to judicial custody.
7. The Inspector General (IG) Rupnagar Range, Rupnagar, on
receipt of complaint from Dev Raj (father of accused No. 2)
transferred the investigation in the present matter to
Ms. Darpan Ahluwalia, IPS, Assistant Superintendent of Police,
Sub Division Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
8. A charge sheet was submitted by the SHO, Police Station
Nangal before the competent court on 20.06.2023. The JMIC,
Rupnagar took cognizance and the matter was committed to
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar (hereinafter
“trial court”) for trial and adjudication. Thereafter, a
supplementary charge sheet was filed on 09.10.2023 based on
subsequent investigation conducted by Assistant Superintendent
of Police, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar.
9. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed a petition
(CRM-M-62252-2023) under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) before the High Court
seeking quashing of charge sheet. The High Court by order
dated 15.12.2023 directed the trial court to adjourn the
proceedings beyond the date fixed by the High Court (i.e.
09.01.2024). Being aggrieved, the appellant filed SLP (Crl.)
3
Diary No.15274/2024 before this Court, which was dismissed on
13.05.2024 with liberty to the appellant to move an
application before High Court for early hearing of the main
matter. However, the application filed for that purpose by
the appellant before High Court was dismissed on 16.07.2024.
As such, the interim order passed on 15.12.2023 for
restraining the trial court from proceeding further with trial
proceedings is still in operation.
10. In the above backdrop, the respondents had earlier
preferred an application seeking regular bail under Section
439 of the CrPC before the trial court by way of separate bail
applications bearing Nos. BA-612-2024 (accused No. 1) and
BA-634-2024 (accused No. 2). The same came to be dismissed by
orders dated 21.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 respectively, finding
that accused No. 1 is a habitual offender as eight other
criminal cases have also been registered against him and
keeping in view the gravity of the offences in this case and
the heinous crime alleged to have been committed by the
respondents.
11. Thereafter, the respondents again preferred regular bail
applications bearing Nos. CRM-M-35115/2024 (O&M) (accused No.
1) and CRM-M-36312/2024 (O&M) (accused No. 2) before the High
Court. The High Court allowed the said applications by way of
the common impugned order dated 14.11.2024, thereby enlarging
the respondents on bail. Being aggrieved by the grant of bail,
the appellant-complainant has preferred the instant appeal
before this Court.
4
12. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant,
learned counsel for the first respondent-State and learned
counsel for the respondent-accused(s) at length. We have also
perused the material on record.
13. Appellant’s counsel made a two-fold submissions:
firstly, he drew our attention to the impugned order and
contended that the impugned order is lacking in reasons for
granting relief of bail to the respondents herein inasmuch as
paragraph 12 of the impugned order only records the
submissions in a cryptic manner, the reasoning given in
paragraphs 13 and 14 and consequently, the relief of bail was
granted to the respondents herein.
14. He further submitted that the reasons are erroneous
inasmuch they do not make merit a case for grant of bail. In
this context, it was submitted that the respondents have been,
inter alia, alleged to have committed the offence under
Section 302 IPC, the manner in which the offence was committed
itself is gruesome and was planned and executed in a manner
which reflects that there was a criminal conspiracy amongst
the accused.
15. The Sessions Court rightly declined to grant bail and
the respondent-accused(s) were in jail for a period of one
year and eight months; the chargesheet had been filed and the
supplementary chargesheet had also been filed. However, there
was a challenge made in the High Court in another proceeding
5
which has stayed the trial itself. He therefore, contended
that on the one hand, the respondents-accused have been
granted the relief of bail and on the other hand, there is a
stay of trial. The said orders would require interference at
the hands of this Court inasmuch as the respondents herein
have criminal antecedents and they are not entitled to the
relief of bail having regard to the manner in which the
deceased was put to death. He, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the grant of
bail may be cancelled.
16. Learned counsel for the first respondent-State with
reference to his counter affidavit contended that the State is
supporting the case of the appellant-complainant herein and
therefore, having regard to the merits of the case,
appropriate orders may be made in these appeals.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused(s) submitted
that the High Court has rightly identified the reasons as to
why the respondent-accused(s) are entitled to the relief of
bail, the fact the accused themselves carried the deceased to
the hospital and saw to it that he was given treatment
immediately which shows that there was no criminal intent in
their mind; they further submitted that the High Court has
recorded in detail the submissions of the learned counsel for
the respective parties and has come to a right conclusion and
hence there is no merit in these appeals and the same may be
dismissed.
6
18. We have given our consideration to the arguments advanced
at the bar and we have perused the material on record.
19. We note that, inter alia, the respondent-accused (s) have
been alleged to have committed the offence under Section 302 of
the IPC. It may be a fact that the respondent-accused(s) may
have carried the injured victim, who later died, to the
Hospital but he was actually brought dead to the hospital. This
fact will have to be considered de hors from the fact as to who
actually had committed the offence in the first place in the
instant case. The trial court has rightly noted the said aspect
and declined to grant bail. However, the High Court has set
aside the said order and in a very cryptic reasoning has
granted the relief of bail.
20. In the circumstances, we find that the order of the High
Court calls for interference and therefore, the same is set
aside. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court is
restored.
21. Since the respondent-accused(s) have been on bail
pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.11.2024, we direct them
to surrender before the Court of the Jurisdictional Magistrate
or the concerned Police Station on or before 16.06.2025, who
will take them into custody.
7
22. In case of failure of the accused to surrender on or
before 16.06.2025, the Police concerned shall take steps to
arrest both the accused.
23. In the meanwhile, the respondent-accused(s) shall
deposit their passports at the Police Station, Nangal,
District Rupnagar on or before 19.05.2025.
The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………,J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………………………………,J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 16, 2025
8
REVISED*
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1427/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-11-2024
in CRMM No. 36312/2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh]
BALJNDER SINGH ALIAS AMAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER Respondent(s)
(IA No. 20245/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 20243/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 1743/2025 (II-B)
(IA No. 21934/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 21928/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 16-05-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dev Datt Kamat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv.
Mr. Hruday Bajentri, Adv.
Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.
Mr. VPS Mithewal, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Garg, Adv.
Ms. Varsha Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.
Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv.
Ms. Lara Siddiqui, Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Sarfaraj Ahmed Siddiqui, Adv.
Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR
Ms. Osheen Bhat, Adv.
Mr. Aman Dwivedi, Adv.
9
Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Pushpinder Singh, AOR
Ms. Anurag Rana, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Wadhwani, Adv.
Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv.
Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv.
Ms. Mehak Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
Mr. Yash Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.*
The appeals are allowed and disposed of in terms of
the signed reportable judgment which is placed on the
file.*
In view of the urgency in the matter, the operative
portion of the judgment is released as under:
OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT
In the circumstances, we find that the order of the High
Court calls for interference and, therefore, the same is set
aside. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court is
restored.
Since the respondent-accused(s) have been on bail
pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.11.2024, we direct that
they shall surrender and the police shall take them into
custody on 16.06.2025. In the meanwhile, the respondent-
accused(s) shall deposit their passports at the Police Station,
10
Nangal, District Rupnagar on or before 19.05.2025.
The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
In view of the aforesaid directions, the operative
portion of the judgment is being released today itself.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
11
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1427/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-11-2024
in CRMM No. 36312/2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh]
BALJNDER SINGH ALIAS AMAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER Respondent(s)
(IA No. 20245/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 20243/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 1743/2025 (II-B)
(IA No. 21934/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 21928/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 16-05-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dev Datt Kamat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv.
Mr. Hruday Bajentri, Adv.
Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.
Mr. VPS Mithewal, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Garg, Adv.
Ms. Varsha Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.
Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv.
Ms. Lara Siddiqui, Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Sarfaraj Ahmed Siddiqui, Adv.
Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv.
12
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR
Ms. Osheen Bhat, Adv.
Mr. Aman Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Pushpinder Singh, AOR
Ms. Anurag Rana, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Wadhwani, Adv.
Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv.
Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv.
Ms. Mehak Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
Mr. Yash Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are allowed and disposed of in terms of
the signed judgment.
In view of the urgency in the matter, the operative
portion of the judgment is released as under:
OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT
In the circumstances, we find that the order of the High
Court calls for interference and, therefore, the same is set
aside. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court is
restored.
Since the respondent-accused(s) have been on bail
pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.11.2024, we direct that
they shall surrender and the police shall take them into
custody on 16.06.2025. In the meanwhile, the respondent-
accused(s) shall deposit their passports at the Police Station,
13
Nangal, District Rupnagar on or before 19.05.2025.
The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
In view of the aforesaid directions, the operative
portion of the judgment is being released today itself.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
14