Manpreet Singh vs State of Punjab

MANISHA BATRA, J.

The instant one is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.15 dated 13.03.2024 registered under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur. His previous petition bearing No.CRM-M-1227-2026 was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.01.2026.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant, Narajan Kaur alleging therein that on the intervening night of 12/13.03.2024, she along with her grandsons was sleeping in her house. At about 1:00 AM, on hearing some noises from the room of her elder grandson Manjot Singh, she had woken up and came out of her room. Within her sight, her younger grandson Manpreet Singh, i.e. the present petitioner, who was carrying an iron axe, struck blows on the person of Manjot Singh, due to which he sustained injuries, blood started oozing out, and he succumbed to the injuries. She raised alarm and then the petitioner had managed to flee. The cause of grudge was that the victim had sold one acre of land in his name about one month back for a sum of Rs. 21–22 lakhs and, with her consent, was going abroad, whereas the petitioner was demanding money from the victim.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Post-mortem examination of dead body of the victim was conducted. The petitioner was arrested on the same day. The blood-stained gandasa used in the crime was recovered from him. Investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has suffered incarceration for a period of about two and a half years. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 11 out of 20 witnesses have been examined so far. The complainant, who was the only eye-witness to the alleged occurrence, has been examined as PW-9, but has not implicated the petitioner in commission of subject offences. There is no other circumstance to connect him with the commission of offence of murder of the victim. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished him a new ground afresh to seek concession of bail. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed upon him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. The complainant was none other than the grandmother of the petitioner. On account of her resiling from her previous statement alone, the petitioner has not become entitled to be extended benefit of bail. There are various other circumstances, including recovery of blood-stained gandasa at the instance of the petitioner and the dead body of the victim having been found at his home where he lived, along with the petitioner, which suggest involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence of murder of the victim. The present one being a successive petition is not maintainable. There are chances of petitioner's absconding if extended benefit of bail. It is hence, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to be noted that every day spent by an accused in custody provides a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. He cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period and the bail application can be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The petitioner is alleged to have caused homicidal death of his own brother on the intervening night of 12/13.03.2024. The complainant, who claimed to be the eye-witness of the occurrence, has now turned hostile and has not implicated the petitioner while appearing as a witness before the learned trial Court. The petitioner's counsel has also placed on record Annexure P-3, copy of sworn deposition of PW-10 Kulwinder Singh, village Sarpanch, who had been informed about the incident immediately thereafter and had gone to the police to record his statement, however, he too has not implicated the petitioner in commission of subject offences. The petitioner is in custody for a period of about two years and six months. The trial will take time to conclude. Taking into consideration the nature of the evidence which has come on record, the period spent by the petitioner in custody, and the attendant facts and circumstances, but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.