Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 February, 2024

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:025374

CRM-M-47620 of 2023                                        2024:PHHC:025374

                   AT CHANDIGARH
                                       CRM-M-47620 of 2023
                                      Reserved on:22.02.2024
                                   Pronounced on: 23.02.2024

Kuldeep Singh                                                     .....Petitioner

State of Punjab                                                 .....Respondent


Present:-   Dr. Rau P.S. Girwar and Ms. Archana Arora, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

        Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

By way of present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.,

petitioner has prayed for his release on regular bail in case GD No.32 dated

12.05.2023 registered under Sections 341, 323, 34 IPC at Police Station

Sadar Rampura, Bathinda [Section 302 IPC added vide GD No.20 dated

19.05.2023] registered at Police Station Sadar Rampura in case FIR No.27

dated 11.05.2023 registered under Sections 452, 341, 323, 324, 506, 336,

427, 148, 149 IPC; and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police

Station Sadar Rampura, Bathinda.

2. Status report by way of affidavit dated 22.02.2024 of Shri

Pritpal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Phul,

Bathinda, has been filed on behalf of the respondent- State.

3.1 It is revealed that FIR No.27 dated 11.05.2023 under Sections

452, 341, 323, 324, 506, 336, 427, 148, 149 IPC besides Sections 25 & 27 of

Arms Act, 1959, was registered at Police Station Sadar Rampura, Bathinda

on the complaint of Kuldeep Singh (present petitioner) against Vatta Singh
Page No.1 out of 5 pages
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2024 20:17:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:025374

CRM-M-47620 of 2023 2024:PHHC:025374

and various others. It was alleged that on 10.05.2023, at about 06:00 PM,

petitioner – Kuldeep had gone to a Diary of his village to supply milk. He

was at a little distance from his house, when Vatta Singh, Shisan Singh, Jeeta

Singh, Babbu Singh and Binder Singh, all armed with weapons (except

Binder Singh who was empty handed), all residents of Village, surrounded

him and started abusing him for stopping them from sitting in the street.

Due to fear, petitioner came to his home and locked the main gate of the

house. It was alleged that at about 07:00 PM, the afore-said persons, i.e.

Vatta Singh etc., along with Manpreet Singh alias Bogha armed with pistol,

Gyan Singh and Ranu entered the house of the petitioner, carrying stones in

their hands. It was alleged that various accused as named in the FIR not

only started throwing bricks and stones but further caused injuries to

petitioner – Kuldeep on various parts of his body and his father Malkeet

Singh. As they raised alarm, petitioner’s wife Jaspreet Kaur, reached the

spot but she was pushed by accused Manpreet Singh alias Bogha. The

assailants also damaged bike of the petitioner. Manpreet Singh alias Bogha

also took out his pistol and fired shots in the air and then fled away.

3.1 MLR dated 10.05.2023 of petitioner – Kuldeep Singh revealed

three injuries on his person caused by blunt weapon. Malkeet Singh, the

father of petitioner was found to have sustained four injuries, out of which

two were caused by sharp edged weapon and two by the blunt weapon.

3.2 On 12.05.2023, a cross case bearing DDR N.32 under Sections

341, 323/34 IPC was registered in the afore-said FIR against the present

petitioner – Kuldeep Singh alias Nikka Singh, his father Malkeet Singh and

their accomplice Gursewak Singh alias Gogga on the statement made by

Bantu son of Karam Singh, as per which, on 10.05.2023, at about 05:00 PM,

petitioner along with his co-accused surrounded Gobind Singh alias Vatta,
Page No.2 out of 5 pages
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2024 20:17:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:025374

CRM-M-47620 of 2023 2024:PHHC:025374

the brother of complainant Bantu Singh. As Bantu Singh along with his

mother and uncle Makhan Singh reached the spot, they noticed that Malkeet

Singh & Gogga were beating Gobind Singh alias Vatta with sticks. When

his family members tried to save him, Malkeet Singh gave blow with stick

on the head of Bantu’s mother Amritpal Kaur and also on other parts of her

body. Petitioner & his father gave several blows on various parts of the body

of Bantu. Petitioner also gave Gandasa blow on the head of Makhan Singh.

On the alarm raised by Bantu Singh and others, the assailants including

petitioner fled away.

3.3 The MLR of Makhan Singh revealed one injury on his head,

which was kept under observation. Three injuries by blunt weapon were

found on the person of Amritpal Kaur, the mother of complainant Bantu

Singh of the DDR. The MLR of Bantu Singh revealed five injuries to have

been inflicted on his person, which were kept under observations.

3.4 During course of investigation, information was received on

19.05.2023 that Makhan Singh had succumbed to the head injury. At this,

Section 302 IPC was added in the cross-case i.e. DDR No.32 dated

12.05.2023 vide separate DDR No.20 dated 19.05.2023. The post mortem

examination of Makhan Singh was got conducted. Cause of death was

opined to be cardio-respiratory arrest due to the injury to the vital organ i.e.

Brain, which was sufficient to cause death in the normal course of nature.

3.5 On 19.05.2023 itself, petitioner – Kuldeep Singh along with his

accomplices Malkeet Singh and Gursewak Singh were arrested in the cross-

case i.e. DDR No.32 dated 12.05.2023. The disclosure statement of co-

accused Gursewak Singh resulted in recovery of the weapons used in the

crime. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173

Cr.P.C has already been filed before the Court concerned.

                               Page No.3 out of 5 pages
                                      3 of 5
                   ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2024 20:17:47 :::
                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:025374

CRM-M-47620 of 2023                                         2024:PHHC:025374

4. It is contended by learned counsel that the petitioner has been

falsely implicated in the cross DDR and that it is the petitioner and his

family members, who were caused injuries by the assailants by entering his

house and by throwing bricks etc., which even resulted in the death of cow

of the petitioner. The FIR was lodged on the statement of petitioner, prior in

time and that later on, Police manipulated the proceedings by registering

DDR No.32 dated 12.05.2023 and by nominating the petitioner and his

family members. It is contended further that the case of petitioner directly

falls under the self defence to protect the life of family members, property

and cattle from the bricks, which were being thrown by accused of FIR

No.27 dated 11.05.2023. It is also contended that injured – Makhan was not

available in the Civil Hospital, Bathinda and had died after ten days and that

whole story has been manipulated. Shoddy investigation has been

conducted by the Police and all the family members of the petitioner have

been implicated. Learned counsel contends further that the various accused

as named in the FIR No.27 dated 11.05.2023, have already been allowed

anticipatory bail by way of the various orders passed by the Court of learned

Additional Sessions Judge. It is also contended that the petitioner is in

custody for the last more than 09 months; and that the trial may take long

time to conclude and so, in all these circumstances, he be allowed bail.

5. Strongly opposing the bail petition, learned State Counsel

submits that the petitioner is mainly attributed to have inflicted Gandasa

blow on the head of the deceased – Makhan which resulted in his death and

the same fact is corroborated by the medical evidence. Learned State

Counsel also submits that in case petitioner is allowed bail, he may try to

influence the witnesses. Gravity of the offence is also pointed out. Prayer is

made for dismissal of the petition.

                               Page No.4 out of 5 pages
                                      4 of 5
                   ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2024 20:17:47 :::
                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:025374

CRM-M-47620 of 2023                                          2024:PHHC:025374

6.           Heard.

7. No doubt, petitioner and his father were found to have sustained

injuries as per the MLRs prepared on 10.05.2023 but at the same time, there

are clear allegations that petitioner, during the course of occurrence, inflicted

Gandasa blow on the head of Makhan, which has resulted in his death. It

will be a matter of trial as to whether petitioner exceeded the right of self

defence. The trial is at the initial stage, as only the charges have been

framed so far as per the status report. Charge against the petitioner is quite


8. Looking into all the facts & circumstances of the case,

particularly the attribution to petitioner and the gravity of the offence, but

without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to

grant benefit of regular bail to the petitioner.


February 23, 2024                                        (DEEPAK GUPTA)
renu                                                         JUDGE
           Whether Speaking/reasoned            Yes/No
           Whether Reportable                   Yes/No

Page No.5 out of 5 pages Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:025374

5 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 24-02-2024 20:17:47 :::


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *