Gurmukh Singh @ Gaggu vs State Of Punjab

1
CRM CRM-M-40251 CRM CRM 40251 40251-2026 40251 2026 2026 2026


319 319 319 319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CRM CRM-M-40251 CRM CRM 40251 40251-2026 40251 2026 2026 2026

Gurmukh Singh @ Gaggu
….Petitioner
versus

State of Punjab
….Respondent

Date of decision: Date of decision: November 12 Date of decision: Date of decision: November 12 November 12, 2026 November 12 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 12 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 12 November 12, 2026 November 12 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Present:- Present: Present: Ms. Neetu Singh Aashaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan Singh Rai, Senior DAG Punjab.


SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL)

nd
Present 2 petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail to
the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.254 dated 08.12.2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111, 61(2)
of the BNS, 2023 and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1976, at Police Station
Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.
The last regular bail plea of the petitioner was dismissed as
withdrawn, vide order dated 19.05.2026 passed in CRM CRM CRM-M-18158 CRM 18158 18158-2026 18158 2026 2026. 2026
2. For the sake of ease, relevant factual milieu drawn from the order
dated 24.03.2026 passed by the concerned Sessions Court (whereby regular bail
plea of the petitioner was rejected), reads thus:







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

2
CRM CRM-M-40251 CRM CRM 40251 40251-2026 40251 2026 2026 2026

“ 2. As per allegations, on 8.12.2025, ASI Anil Kumar of PS Dasuya
alongwith other police officials was present at P.S Dasuya in connection
with investigation of case bearing FIR No. 253 dated 3.12.2025 U/s 9 of
The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoner Temporary Release act 1962, then
accused Gurmukh Singh son of Tarsem Singh resident of Ward No. 13
Mission Road Dasuya suffered disclosure statement before ASI Anil
Kumar to the effect that he was undergoing imprisonment of 10 years at
Central Jail Goindwal Sahib in case bearing FIR No. 149 dated 11.10.2020
U/s 21(c), 29 of NDPS Act PS Hariana District Hoshiarpur and was on
parole for a period of 11 days from 7.11.2025. During this period, he had
gone to Lucknow and got prepared his passport on the basis of forged
documents, by giving address of village Payag Post office Bashamafi,
Lakhimpur Khiri. On this passport, he had to go Dubai from Calcutta, but
he was apprehended by the Immigration department at Calcutta Airport.
During interrogation, accused Gurmukh Singh had suffered disclosure
statement on 12.12.2025 to the effect that he got prepared his passport
through Manoj Khanna son of Joginder Nath resident of Devria Rada,
Bheera, Post Rada Bazar, Devari Rara, Gola Gokaran Nath, Kheri (UP).
The applicant-accused was arrested in this case on 8.12.2025. xx xx ”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in
custody since 08.12.2025. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It has been argued that vague and
concocted allegations have been leveled against the petitioner. Learned counsel
has urged that it is the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Manoj Khanna who
had got the passport of the petitioner renewed from Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh)
instead of the competent authority at Hoshiarpur. According to learned counsel for
the petitioner, the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Learned
counsel has iterated that the disclosure statement made by the petitioner is not
admissible evidence in law.
3.1. Learned counsel has iterated that the challan (upon culmination of
investigation) has already been presented on 07.03.2026 & charge(s) have been
framed on 10.09.2026. Total 12 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none
has been examined till date. Learned counsel has, thus, argued that further
detention of the petitioner behind bars would not serve any useful purpose







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

3
CRM CRM-M-40251 CRM CRM 40251 40251-2026 40251 2026 2026 2026

particularly when culmination of the trial is likely to take long time. On the basis
of aforesaid submissions, the grant of instant petition is entreated for.
4. In oppugnation , learned State counsel has filed status report by way
of an affidavit dated 01.11.2026, which is already on record. Role of the petitioner,
as mentioned in the said status report, reads thus:
ROLE OF PETITIONER:
“
6. That the petitioner is the principal beneficiary of the alleged forged
passport. The petitioner deliberately failed to surrender after expiry
of his parole, arranged a passport through co-accused Manoj
Khanna on the basis of forged documents and a false address, and
attempted to leave India to evade the process of law. His
involvement is alleged to be direct, as the passport was obtained in
his own name for his intended foreign travel. The role of co-
accused Manoj Khanna in facilitating the preparation of the
passport also surfaced during investigation. Therefore, the present
petition is liable to be dismissed. ”

4.1. In respect of antecedents of the petitioner, it has been stated, in the
aforesaid status report, as under:
“ 7. That it is submitted that the petitioner is habitual offender and the
following cases are registered him:-
i. FIR No.29 dated 23.02.2014 u/s 382, 34 was registered at P.S.
Khanna, Samrala against the petitioner.
ii. FIR No.34 dated 06.03.2014 u/s 302, 482, 120B, 148, 149 IPC
and 25 Arms Act was registered at P.S. Model Town Hoshiarpur
against the petitioner and the petitioner was convicted in this
case.
iii. FIR No.80 dated 02.03.2015 u/s 399, 402 IPC was registered at
P.S. Civil Line Amritsar against the petitioner.
iv. FIR No.102 dated 21.04.2015 u/s 25 Arms Act was registered at
P.S. Dasuya Hoshiarpur against the petitioner.
v. FIR No.169 dated 12.08.2017 u/s 399, 402 IPC was registered at
P.S. Hakima Gate Amritsar against the petitioner.
vi. FIR No.352 of 2019 u/s 307, 336, 386, 506, 120B IPC and 25,
27, 54 Arms Act was registered at P.S. Model Town Hoshiarpur
against the petitioner.
vii. FIR No.149 dated 11.10.2020 u/s 21C, 29 NDPS Act was
registered at P.S. Hariana, Hoshiarpur against the petitioner and
he was convicted in this case.
viii. FIR No.265 of 2020 u/s 21B, 29 NDPS Act was registered at
P.S. Adampur Distt Jalandhar against the petitioner.
ix. FIR No.286 dated 7.11.2022 u/s 21C, 29 NDPS Act was
registered at P.S. ANTF Sector 79 SS Nagar against the
petitioner.
x. FIR No.146 of 2023 u/s 302, 149, 120B IPC and 25, 54, 59 Arms
Act was registered at P.S. Bullowal Hosharpur against the
petitioner.







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

4
CRM CRM-M-40251 CRM CRM 40251 40251-2026 40251 2026 2026 2026

xi. FIR No.253 dated 03.02.2015 u/s 9 of the Punjab good conduct
prisoner temporary release Act 1962 was registered at P.S.
Dasuya Hoshiarpur against the petitioner.
”

Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned
State counsel has opposed the petition by arguing that the allegations raised
against the petitioner are serious in nature. It has been further submitted that after
conclusion of investigation, challan has been presented and out of total 12
prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date, thus, in case the
petitioner is granted the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner, at this stage, there
is all likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice as also
intimidate the prosecution witnesses. It has been stated that the petitioner does not
bear clean antecedents. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody
certificate dated 04.11.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. On the
basis of these submissions, the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused
the available record.
6. The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the court;
however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner,
ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and is in the interests of justice.
While considering a bail application, the court must evaluate factors such as the
existence of prima facie evidence implicating the accused, the nature and gravity
of the alleged offence, and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. The
court must also assess the likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due
process of law, the probability of the offence being repeated, and any reasonable
apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Additionally, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing, and







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

5
CRM CRM-M-40251 CRM CRM 40251 40251-2026 40251 2026 2026 2026

overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the court must
weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the administration of justice or
thwarting its due course. A profitable reference in this regard is made to the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State through C.B.I. vs. State through C.B.I. vs. State through C.B.I. vs. State through C.B.I. vs.
Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Cou Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Cou Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Cou rt 3490, rt 3490, rt 3490, relevant whereof reads as
under:
14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application
“
for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity
of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v)
character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi)
likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice
being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi,
2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 Gurcharan Gurcharan Gurcharan
Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179). Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179 Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179 Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179
While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or
witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such
character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or
if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or
tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to
the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Kalyan Kalyan Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC)
:2004(7) SCC 528 :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very :2004(7) SCC 528 :2004(7) SCC 528
well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of
granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a
need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why
bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having
committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would
suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court
granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors
also before granting bail; they are:
a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant.
c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (see
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250
(SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal)
801 (SC) : 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338. 801 (SC) : 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338. 2001(6) SCC 338. 2001(6) SCC 338. ”








MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

6
CRM CRM-M-40251 CRM CRM 40251 40251-2026 40251 2026 2026 2026

7. As per the prosecution case, serious allegations have been levelled
against the petitioner. Perusal of the prosecution case, the material collected
during investigation, the status report filed by the State, as also the order whereby
the petitioner’s plea for grant of regular bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions
Court, prima facie , reveals that the petitioner was on parole in connection with
another FIR. His passport had expired and, instead of surrendering the same before
the competent authority, the petitioner allegedly procured a passport through his
co-accused, namely, Manoj Khanna, on the basis of forged documents and by
furnishing a false address. It is further alleged that, by using the said passport, the
petitioner attempted to leave the country with a view to evade the process of law.
The petitioner is stated to be the direct beneficiary of the alleged forgery, as the
passport was procured in his own name for the purpose of his intended attempt to
abscond. The investigation has also brought to light the alleged role of co-accused
Manoj Khanna in facilitating the procurement of the said passport.
7.1. Another relevant consideration is the criminal antecedents of the
petitioner. Perusal of the status report ( ibid ) as also the admission of the petitioner
in the petition in hand reveals that the petitioner is/ was involved in other FIR(s).
At the stage of considering the prayer for regular bail, such antecedents constitute
a relevant consideration/ factor, particularly when considered along with the
nature and gravity of the allegations in the present case and the specific role
attributed to the petitioner. The antecedents, though not determinative of the
question of bail by itself, cannot be completely disregarded while assessing the
likelihood of the petitioner repeating similar conduct or misusing the concession
of bail. The apprehension regarding his interfering with the prosecution witnesses







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

7
CRM CRM-M-40251 CRM CRM 40251 40251-2026 40251 2026 2026 2026

or otherwise hampering the fair progress of the trial also cannot be said to be
wholly unfounded.
8. The present petition is the second attempt by the petitioner to secure
regular bail. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this
Court in Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024:PHHC:054064 Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024:PHHC:054064 Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024:PHHC:054064. Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024:PHHC:054064
8.1. The first regular bail plea was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order
dated 19.05.2026. The present petition is a successive attempt to secure the
concession of regular bail on substantially the same set of facts and grounds. The
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner were very much
available for consideration at the time of adjudication of the petitioner’s first
petition seeking regular bail, which was dismissed vide order ( ibid ). The only
circumstance sought to be projected as a distinguishing feature is the further
period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner. However, in the peculiar facts
and attending circumstances of the present case, mere prolongation of custody, in
the absence of any other supervening circumstance, cannot, by itself, be construed
as a valid or sufficient ground to revisit this Court with a plea for grant of regular
bail. Continued incarceration, without any material change in the factual or legal
landscape, does not ipso facto entitle an accused to the concession of regular bail.
It is trite law that the maintainability of a second or successive petition for grant of
regular bail is predicated upon the existence of a substantial, material or
supervening change in circumstances occurring after the rejection/ withdrawal of
the earlier petition. In the case at hand, no such worthy fresh circumstance, either
factual or legal, has been brought to the notice of this Court.
8.2. The only changed circumstance(s), after withdrawal of the previous
bail plea of the petitioner by this Court, is that the petitioner has suffered further







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

8
CRM CRM-M-40251 CRM CRM 40251 40251-2026 40251 2026 2026 2026

incarceration for a period of about 6 months from the date of withdrawal of
previous bail plea by this Court. This extended incarceration of the petitioner, by
itself, when seen vis-à-vis the nature/ serious of allegations against the petitioner,
is not a ground sufficient to warrant the interference of this Court in the present
successive attempt for securing regular bail.
9. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in
hand; especially the nature & seriousness of allegations against the petitioner,
criminal antecedents of the petitioner, as also on account of non-existence of any
substantial, material or supervening change in circumstance(s); this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail
at this stage.
10. In view of above ratiocination, it is directed as under:
(i) The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed dismissed; dismissed dismissed
(ii) Any observations made and/or submissions noted
hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case
and the investigating agency as also the trial Court shall
proceed further, in accordance with law, without being
influenced with this order;
(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.









(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL) SUMEET GOEL
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
November 12 November 12, 2026 November 12 November 12 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.12 17:44
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment