Harpreet Singh alias Happy Bhullar v. State of Punjab
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 CRM-M-43574-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: May 8th, 2025 Harpreet Singh alias Happy Bhullar Versus State of Punjab .....Petitioner .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Mr. Joban S. Dhaliwal, Mr. Gurjas S. Gill, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (ORAL) CRM-8915-2025 Prayer in this application is for placing on record copy of statement of PW-3 Amritpal Singh as Annexure P-9. Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Annexure P-9 is taken on record. CRM-M-43574-2024 Petitioner is seeking the concession of regular bail in
Legal Reasoning
FIR No.48 dated 06.03.2021 under Sections 302, 451, 452, 148, 149, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of The Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Division No.8, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, while drawing the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR in question, PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.08 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43574-2024 (O&M) -2- submits that although it is stated to be an eyewitness account, however, the petitioner was not named in the FIR in question nor was any suspicion raised qua his involvement in the murder of Gurmeet Singh. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner came to be nominated on the basis of a disclosure statement allegedly suffered by co-accused Puneet Sharma, who claimed that the petitioner was also one of the alleged assailants. Learned senior counsel has asserted that after the petitioner was arrested on 06.10.2022, all the material witnesses except Harvinder Singh had not only been examined before the trial Court but had been declared hostile as they failed to identify the petitioner as being one of the perpetrators of the crime in question. It has been further submitted that the remaining material witness Harvinder Pal Singh has been continuously absenting himself before the trial Court, as a result of which his evidence has not yet been recorded. Learned senior counsel submits that in the aforementioned facts and circumstances, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose as firstly he is innocent and furthermore, the trial would take considerable time to conclude with only six witnesses out of the 42 having been examined so far. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, has not disputed the submissions made by the counsel opposite with respect to the custody period of the petitioner nor has he, on instructions from Inspector Kamaljeet Singh, disputed the stage of trial, however, he submits that as per instructions received by him, only one witness i.e. Surinder Pal has been examined, however, he has conceded that the said witness did not support the case of the prosecution. Learned State PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.08 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43574-2024 (O&M) -3- counsel, however, has not been able to controvert the contents of Annexure P-3, which is annexed with the petition and Annexure P-9, which has been placed on record by the learned senior counsel, which are testimonies of the other material witnesses. 4. On further query, learned State counsel, on instructions, has also not disputed that the case at hand hinges on eyewitness account, however, the petitioner was neither named therein nor any suspicion raised qua his involvement. He submits that the petitioner was one of the unidentified persons, who had accompanied prime accused Puneet Sharma at the time of the alleged occurrence. In addition, learned State counsel has reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR (Annexure P-1), which stands reproduced hereinunder: “Statement of Surinder Pal Singh son of Inderjit Singh, resident of House No. 88, New Kailash Nagar, Jalandhar, aged about 73 years. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and I have my Factory of Rubber Breading at Sayipur Road, Sodal Road, Jalandhar. I have three children. My second child Gurmeet Singh alias Tinku, aged about 40 years, who was doing the business of PVC and Finance, whose shop by the name of Baba PVC is situated at Preet Nagar, Sodhal Road, Jalandhar. That for some important work, today at about 01.25 pm, I was standing outside the shop of my son and then about 5 persons came there in a car and they, while firing gunshots with Pistols, entered the shop, where my son's Driver and my son Gurmeet Singh were present, in the meantime, my son's Partner Harwinder Kumar also came there. That the said persons continued firing inside our shop and the screams of my son were heard. That within few minutes, all the said persons, while firing gunshots, PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.08 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43574-2024 (O&M) -4- came outside the shop and by sitting in their car, ithey fled, one young boy was already sitting in car. I and Harwinder Kumar Identified two young boys while they were running, one boy is 18 Puneet Sharma son of Rajinder Kumar, resident of House No. 121, Aman Nagar Jalandhar and the second boy was Narinder Sharma alias Lalli son of Subhash Chander, resident of Gujja Peer Road Jalandhar. The remaining three persons could not be identified by us and we can identify them if they are brought before us. During this time, one young boy of locality (Mohalla) Mohit Kumar son of Kuldeep Kumar also came there and on reaching the First Floor of the shop, we saw that my son, after suffering the injuring from gunshots, was lying down and a lot of blood was oozed out of him. With the help of other person, I took my son to Capitol Hospital, where Doctor Sahib declared my son as dead. That due to old animosity/bitterness, the aforesaid persons, by firing shots, have killed my son. Legal action be taken against them.” 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. The instant case is based on eyewitness account. All the material witnesses including the complainant and other eyewitnesses have not only been examined but have been declared hostile as they failed to identify the petitioner as being one of the alleged assailants, who had accompanied the other named accused at the time of the occurrence in question. Since as many as 36 witnesses remain to be examined, there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.08 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43574-2024 (O&M) -5- 7. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Needless to say, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same. May 8th, 2025 Puneet (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.08 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh