Shaminder Singh @ Sinder Singh & Anr. vs State Of Punjab

“1.

2.

Balchinder Singh stated that his younger brother Devinder Singh alias Teena was married with Jaspreet Kaur daughter of Pappu Ram, two years ago and had a son 7 months ago. Devinder Singh took 42 killas land on lease in village Barnala from 2020 to 2030 from Sadhu Singh, along with Balkaran Singh Singh @ Raju with whom he was jointly cultivating the land. Sadhu Singh was paid lease amount at the rate of Rs.47,000/- per acre in the first year, Rs.60,000/-in the second year and Rs. 68,000/- in the third year. His brother used to tell him that in the first year, they paid lease amount by borrowing money from commission agents. Due to poor financial condition, in the year 2022, they sold one acre of land, out of which, some money was paid as lease amount by Devinder Singh and remaining was given to Balkaran Singh @ Raju, as loan Rs.5,57,000/- was given out of sale proceeds of wheat, Rs.8,00,000/- in cash, Rs 3,25,000/- by cheque and Rs 1,80,000/- by sale of tractor. He further alleged that on 06.03.2026 his brother Devinder Singh alias Teena went to the house of Balkaran Singh @ Raju for settling the accounts where he was humiliated by Balkaran Singh, his father and mother, who ousted him from the house and refused to return the money Fed up with the conduct of Balkaran Singh @ Raju, Sukhwinder Singh @ Shinder Singh son of Uggar Singh and Paramjit Kaur, his brother consumed sulphas tablets at Barnala and expired.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially, petitioners were both found innocent during investigation of the case. However, on application moved by the complainant, SIT was constituted which indicted the petitioners. Main accused namely Balkaran Singh @ Raju had since been allowed regular bail by this Court vide order dated 13.07.2026. He further submits that the only role attributed to the petitioners was that when deceased came to their house to settle the accounts, they pushed him and ousted him. It is argued that even if the allegations were accepted as correct, no ingredients of the offence under Section 108 of BNS would be made out against them Deceased ended his life due to financial distress on account of his unstable mental condition and no mens era could be attributed to the petitioners, who were both elderly persons, ready and willing to join investigation.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Kunwarbır Singh, AAG Punjab, who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and assisted by Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for complainant, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail arguing that not only in the FIR, specific role was attributed to the petitioners even in the suicide note left behind by the deceased. There was also a video left behind by the deceased reiterating the same allegations as levelled in the suicide note. Therefore, petitioners were not entitlted to the concession of anticipatory bail.

6.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest, petitioners shall be released on interim anticipatory bail subject to their furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer Petitioners shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

List on 23 09.2026.”