IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

252 Date of decision: March 4^th, 2025 Amritpal Singh alias Amrit Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J .

Petitioner is seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No.18 dated 06.03.2022 under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 120-B of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act (Section 302 IPC deleted later on), registered at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in question (Annexure P-1) was registered against unidentified persons, who came to the place of occurrence on 05.03.2022, with no suspicion raised against the petitioner by the complainant. However, two days later, the complainant, a friend of deceased Jaswinder Singh alias Happy, made a supplementary statement, suspecting the involvement of co-accused Ranjit Singh. Upon his arrest, Ranjit Singh disclosed that the petitioner had accompanied him and participated in the twin murders of Jaswinder Singh and Baljeet Singh at an eatery near the bus stop. According to the disclosure statement, the petitioner was armed with a datar, but no injury-let alone a fatal one-was attributed to him except for one inflicted on Gagandeep Singh (injured witness). It is further argued by the learned counsel that no weapon was recovered from the petitioner, and no motive has been attributed to him. The only evidence against him is the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which has limited evidentiary value.

3. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has been in custody since 28.02.2024, with only one out of 33 prosecution witnesses examined so far, making an early conclusion of that trial unlikely. Furthermore, identically placed co-accused have already been granted bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite has argued, on instructions, that after co-accused Ranjit Singh was arrested following the supplementary statement made by the complainant, he disclosed the names of all the unidentified assailants. While the complainant did not nominate the petitioner, his name surfaced in co-accused Ranjit Singh's disclosure statement. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that the petitioner along with the co-accused were involved in a cold-blooded murder and hence, he does not deserve the concession of bail. However, the learned State counsel has not disputed the custody period or that 30 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined. It is also undisputed that the motive to commit the crime has been attributed only to co-accused Ranjit Singh and that the petitioner has not been attributed fatal injuries on the deceased. However, learned State counsel has, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has been attributed a datar injury on the complainant.

5. On a pointed query, learned State counsel, on instructions, has also not been able to refute that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents and he is similarly placed as co-accused, who have been granted bail.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

7. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce the contents of the FIR, which are as under:

“Statement of Gagandeep Singh son of Mangaljit Singh r/o Bhandwa, P.S. Kalanaur aged about 41 years, stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and I have passed MSc/IT and now doing the work of agriculture. On 05.03.2022, me and my friend Jaswinder Singh @ Happy son of Shangara Singh, r/o Shahpur, P.S. Ghuman Kalan, Daljit Singh son of Jagir Singh, r/o Khosian, P.S. Surat Kotli Malli were sitting at Ninda Chicken Corner Adda Wadala Bangar and having chicken and I was sitting with my back towards the door