SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TARANDEEP SINGH @ PRINCE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent



234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.04.2026 Date of uploading:01.04.2026 Tarandeep Singh @ Prince ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. GPS Bal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.36 dated 21.02.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 323, 341, 427, 148 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) (Section 302 of IPC added later on) and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that complainant, namely, Charanjit Singh, stated that in the intervening night of 14/15.02.2022, at about 12:00 midnight to 12:30 AM, his nephew Akashdeep Singh informed him telephonically that he and Babanpreet Singh were returning from Chandigarh in their Baleno car bearing registration number PB-23-Z-5367. When they were about to get over the Desu Majra flyover, some boys in another Baleno car hit their vehicle and attacked both Akashdeep Singh and Babanpreet Singh. These boys were armed with deadly weapons and had encircled them. After receiving the call, the complainant, along with his brother, namely, Jasvir Singh, immediately went towards Desu Majra cut near the flyover, where they met Akashdeep Singh. He informed them that Babanpreet Singh had been taken to Max Hospital, Phase-6, Mohali. They rushed to the hospital, where the doctor informed that Babanpreet Singh had succumbed to his injuries. Proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) were initiated by the police based on the statement of Akashdeep Singh. Later, Akashdeep Singh further informed that on the night of 14.02.2022, he and Babanpreet Singh had gone to PARA Club, near Alto Mall, Chandigarh. At the club, a quarrel and scuffle took place between them and the accused persons Sagar Nahar, Parminder Singh, Kulbir Sarao (petitioner herein), Prince, and 4–5 other unidentified individuals. After this altercation, these accused persons followed their Baleno car. When Akashdeep Singh and Babanpreet Singh were about to cross the Desu Majra flyover from the slip road, the accused deliberately hit their car from the side, causing significant damage. Thereafter, the accused stopped and encircled their vehicle. They alighted from their car, forcibly opened the front window of Akashdeep Singh’s car, and dragged Babanpreet Singh out. The accused then started assaulting both Akashdeep Singh and Babanpreet Singh. When they were about to kill Babanpreet Singh, he tried to escape and ran to the other side of the road to save himself. The accused chased him and, upon pushing him violently, caused him to collide with a Himachal Roadways bus bearing registration number HP-53-B-7401 coming from the opposite direction. The deceased struck the bus and sustained a severe head injury. The bus driver, Arun Singh, stopped the bus and came out, upon which the assailants fled from the spot in their car. As a result of the injuries sustained during the assault and subsequent collision, Babanpreet Singh died. His death occurred due to the beatings and violent acts committed by the aforementioned accused persons, who forced him into the path of the bus while he was trying to escape from them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 30.01.2025. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has also iterated that assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, offence under Section 302 of IPC is not made out and at the most, it could be an offence under Section 304 of I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top