207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-48271-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.02.2026 Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. K.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab.

Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate for the complainant.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. Present is the second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed with a prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021, registered under Sections 452, 302, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, (later on Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added), registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda.

2. The present FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021 was registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, on the statement of the complainant Gurbhai Singh, who alleged that due to a long-standing land dispute and demarcation between him and his brother Darshan Singh, a quarrel had taken place earlier in the day. It is alleged that later on, Darshan Singh, along with co-accused Gopi, Lucky Pandit, Kiddu, Raghveer Singh and Ravinder Singh alias Lali, and one unknown person, came to the house of the complainant. As per the prosecution version, Raghveer Singh and Lucky Pandit were armed with 12 bore guns, while Ravinder Singh alias Lali was armed with a pistol. It is alleged that Lucky Pandit aimed his gun towards the complainant party, during which the complainant attempted to deflect the barrel, resulting in an injury to his hand, whereas Ravinder Singh alias Lali allegedly fired directly at Parampreet Singh alias Garry, son of the complainant, causing fatal gunshot injuries. Darshan Singh is alleged to have exhorted and facilitated the occurrence, while the remaining accused are stated to have accompanied the assailants and participated in the incident. Thereafter, all the accused fled from the spot in their respective vehicles, and Parampreet Singh alias Garry was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead, leading to the registration of the present FIR under Sections 452, 302, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, with subsequent addition of Sections 201 IPC and 54/59 of the Arms Act.

3. Subsequently, a supplementary statement was recorded by way of General Diary Entry (DDR), wherein the complainant categorically stated that the identity of the previously unknown person involved in the occurrence had come to his knowledge and the said unknown accused was identified as Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna, son of Paramjit Singh, resident of Pratap Nagar, Bathinda. In the said DDR, it is alleged that Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna was present at the spot along with the other named accused during the occurrence and had accompanied them in furtherance of their common intention. On the basis of the said DDR and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the name of the petitioner Ramandeep Singh alias Ramna was specifically nominated as an accused in the present case, and proceedings for his arrest were initiated, attributing to him the role of being part of the unlawful assembly involved in the commission of the alleged offence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name surfaced for the first time after a gap of about nine months in the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is further contended that even as per the prosecution version, the fatal gunshot injury has been specifically attributed to co-accused Ravinder Singh alias Lali, who is presently in custody. Learned counsel submits that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.02.2024; however, subsequent material changes have taken place thereafter. It is argued that mate