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

CRM-M-66882-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.02.2026 Kulwinder Singh alias Kindu ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Keerat Dhillon, 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 Sections 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 Lalli 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name was subsequently introduced on the basis of a supplementary statement of the complainant. It is argued that even as per the prosecution case, the petitioner is not attributed any role of firing, and the fatal shot has been specifically attributed to the main accused Ravinder Singh alias Lali, who is already in custody. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner claims parity with co-accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit and Avtar Singh alias Gopi, both of whom have been granted regular bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court, despite allegations of more serious roles against them. It is further contended that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed at a stage when the material prosecution witnesses had not been examined, whereas now all material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and eyewitnesses, stand examined, thereby constituting a subsequent change in circumstances. On these grounds, it is submitted that the continued incarceration of the petitioner is unwarranted and he deserves the concession of regular bail on the ground of parity, prolonged custody, and absence of a fatal role.

4. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, today in Court, which is taken on record. He has opposed the bail application and submits that the case of the present petitioner is not on parity with the other co-accused who have been granted ba