Kulwinder Singh alias Kindu v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Feb 2026
- Bench
- MANDEEP PANNU
Outcome
Allowed
case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 148, 149, 201, 302, 452, 506
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 5, 25, 27
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 10, 202 tripti , 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU)…
Judgment
MANDEEP PANNU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate for the complainant. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) MANDEEP PANNU J.
etition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Present is the second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya etition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Present is the se with a prayer for grant of regular bail to the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed with a prayer for grant of regular bail to the with a prayer for grant of regular bail to the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021, registered under Sections 452, 302, petitioner in case FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021, registered under Sections 452, 302, FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021, registered under Sections 452, 302, petitioner in case 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the dian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections Arms Act, 1959, later on Sections 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections dian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections Arms Act, 1959, later on Sections 201 of the In 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added, registered at Police Station Maur, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added, registered at Police Station Maur, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added, registered at Police Station Maur, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added, registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda. District Bathinda.
The present FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021 was registered at Police The present FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021 was registered at Police The present FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021 was registered at Police The present FIR No. 62 dated 21.06.2021 was registered at Police he complainant Gurbhai Station Maur, District Bathinda, on the statement of the complainant Gurbhai Station Maur, District Bathinda, on the statement of t Station Maur, District Bathinda, on the statement of t standing land dispute and demarcation Singh, who alleged that due to a long-standing land dispute and demarcation standing land dispute and demarcation Singh, who alleged that due to a long between him and his brother Darshan Singh, a quarrel had taken place earlier in the between him and his brother Darshan Singh, a quarrel had taken place earlier in the between him and his brother Darshan Singh, a quarrel had taken place earlier in the between him and his brother Darshan Singh, a quarrel had taken place earlier in the pi, Lucky day.
It is alleged that later on, Darshan Singh, along with co-accused Gopi, Lucky day. It is alleged that later on, Darshan Singh, along with co day. It is alleged that later on, Darshan Singh, along with co TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.10 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-66882- -2025 (O&M) -2- Pandit, Kiddu, Raghveer Singh and Ravinder Singh alias Lal Pandit, Kiddu, Raghveer Sin i, and one unknown gh and Ravinder Singh alias Lali, and one unknown person, came to the house of the complainant. As per the prosecution version, person, came to the house of the complainant. As per the prosecution version, person, came to the house of the complainant. As per the prosecution version, person, came to the house of the complainant. As per the prosecution version, Raghveer Singh and Lucky Pandit were armed with 12 bore guns, while Ravinder Raghveer Singh and Lucky Pandit were armed with 12 bore guns, while Ravinder Raghveer Singh and Lucky Pandit were armed with 12 bore guns, while Ravinder Raghveer Singh and Lucky Pandit were armed with 12 bore guns, while Ravinder i was armed with a pistol.
It is alleged that Lucky Pandit aimed his Singh alias Lali was armed with a pistol. It is alleged that Lucky Pandit aimed his i was armed with a pistol. It is alleged that Lucky Pandit aimed his i was armed with a pistol. It is alleged that Lucky Pandit aimed his gun towards the complainant party, during which the complainant attempted to gun towards the complainant party, during which the complainant attempted to gun towards the complainant party, during which the complainant attempted to gun towards the complainant party, during which the complainant attempted to deflect the barrel, resulting in an injury to his hand, whereas Ravinder Singh alias deflect the barrel, resulting in an injury to his hand, whereas Ravinder Singh alias deflect the barrel, resulting in an injury to his hand, whereas Ravinder Singh alias deflect the barrel, resulting in an injury to his hand, whereas Ravinder Singh alias rectly at Parampreet Singh alias Garry, son of the Lalli allegedly fired directly at Parampreet Singh alias Garry, son of the rectly at Parampreet Singh alias Garry, son of the Lalli allegedly fired di complainant, causing fatal gunshot injuries.
Darshan Singh is alleged to have complainant, causing fatal gunshot injuries. Darshan Singh is alleged to have complainant, causing fatal gunshot injuries. Darshan Singh is alleged to have complainant, causing fatal gunshot injuries. Darshan Singh is alleged to have exhorted and facilitated the occurrence, while the remaining accused are stated to exhorted and facilitated the occurrence, while the remaining accused are stated to exhorted and facilitated the occurrence, while the remaining accused are stated to exhorted and facilitated the occurrence, while the remaining accused are stated to ated in the incident. Thereafter, all the have accompanied the assailants and participated in the incident. Thereafter, all the ated in the incident. Thereafter, all the have accompanied the assailants and particip accused fled from the spot in their respective vehicles, and Parampreet Singh alias accused fled from the spot in their respective vehicles, and Parampreet Singh alias accused fled from the spot in their respective vehicles, and Parampreet Singh alias accused fled from the spot in their respective vehicles, and Parampreet Singh alias Garry was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead, leading to the Garry was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead, leading to the Garry was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead, leading to the Garry was taken to hospital, where he was declared dead, leading to the 06, 148, 149 IPC and registration of the present FIR under Sections 452, 302, 506, 148, 149 IPC and registration of the present FIR under Sections 452, 302, 5 registration of the present FIR under Sections 452, 302, 5 Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, with subsequent addition of Sections 201 IPC Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, with subsequent addition of Sections 201 IPC Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, with subsequent addition of Sections 201 IPC Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, with subsequent addition of Sections 201 IPC and 54/59 of the Arms Act. and 54/59 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not introduced on the basis of a named in the FIR and his name was subsequently introduced on the basis of a named in the FIR and his name was subsequently named in the FIR and his name was subsequently supplementary statement of the complainant. It is argued that even as per the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is argued that even as per the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is argued that even as per the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is argued that even as per the prosecution case, the petitioner is not attributed any role of firing, and the fatal shot prosecution case, the petitioner is not attributed any role of firing, and the fatal shot prosecution case, the petitioner is not attributed any role of firing, and the fatal shot prosecution case, the petitioner is not attributed any role of firing, and the fatal shot has been specifically attributed to the main accused Ravi has been specifically attr er Singh alias Lali, who ibuted to the main accused Ravinder Singh alias Lali, who is already in custody.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner claims is already in custody. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner claims is already in custody. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner claims is already in custody. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner claims accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit and Avtar Singh alias parity with co-accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit and Avtar Singh alias accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit and Avtar Singh alias accused Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit and Avtar Singh alias hes of this Gopi, both of whom have been granted regular bail by Coordinate Benches of this Gopi, both of whom have been granted regular bail by Coordinate Benc Gopi, both of whom have been granted regular bail by Coordinate Benc Court, despite allegations of more serious roles against them. It is further Court, despite allegations of more serious roles against them.
It is further Court, despite allegations of more serious roles against them. It is further Court, despite allegations of more serious roles against them. It is further contended that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed at a stage contended that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed at a stage contended that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed at a stage contended that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed at a stage TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.10 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-66882- -2025 (O&M) -3- when the material prosecution witnesses had not been examined, whereas now all when the material prosecution witnesses had not been examined, whereas now all when the material prosecution witnesses had not been examined, whereas now all when the material prosecution witnesses had not been examined, whereas now all aterial prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and eyewitnesses, stand material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and eyewitnesses, stand aterial prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and eyewitnesses, stand aterial prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and eyewitnesses, stand examined, thereby constituting a subsequent change in circumstances.
On these examined, thereby constituting a subsequent change in circumstances. On these examined, thereby constituting a subsequent change in circumstances. On these examined, thereby constituting a subsequent change in circumstances. On these grounds, it is submitted that the continued incarceration of the petitioner is grounds, it is submitted that the continued incarceration of the petitioner is grounds, it is submitted that the continued incarceration of the petitioner is grounds, it is submitted that the continued incarceration of the petitioner is deserves the concession of regular bail on the ground of parity, unwarranted and he deserves the concession of regular bail on the ground of parity, deserves the concession of regular bail on the ground of parity, unwarranted and he prolonged custody, and absence of a fatal role. prolonged custody, and absence of a fatal role.
Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, today in Court, which is taken on record. He has opposed the bail petitioner, today in Court, which is taken on record petitioner, today in Court, which is taken on record application and submits that the case of the present petitioner is not on parity with application and submits that the case of the present petitioner is not on parity with application and submits that the case of the present petitioner is not on parity with application and submits that the case of the present petitioner is not on parity with accused who have been granted bail. It is contended that the CCTV the other co-accused who have been granted bail.
It is contended that the CCTV accused who have been granted bail. It is contended that the CCTV accused who have been granted bail. It is contended that the CCTV footage clearly establishes the presence of the present petitioner at the spot at the footage clearly establishes the presence of the present petitioner at the spot at the footage clearly establishes the presence of the present petitioner at the spot at the footage clearly establishes the presence of the present petitioner at the spot at the relevant time. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was a relevant time. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was a relevant time. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was a relevant time. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly, which had assembled with a common object, member of the unlawful assembly, which had assembled with a common object, member of the unlawful assembly, which had assembled with a common object, member of the unlawful assembly, which had assembled with a common object, and the said unlawful assembly resulted in the death of the sole son of the and the said unlawful assembly resulted in the death of the sole son of the and the said unlawful assembly resulted in the death of the sole son of the and the said unlawful assembly resulted in the death of the sole son of the that the offence is of a grave and heinous nature, complainant.
It is argued that the offence is of a grave and heinous nature, that the offence is of a grave and heinous nature, complainant. It is argued involving a brutal murder within the precincts of the complainant’s house, and the involving a brutal murder within the precincts of the complainant’s house, and the involving a brutal murder within the precincts of the complainant’s house, and the involving a brutal murder within the precincts of the complainant’s house, and the petitioner actively participated in the occurrence along with the other accused. On petitioner actively participated in the occurrence along with the other accused. On petitioner actively participated in the occurrence along with the other accused. On petitioner actively participated in the occurrence along with the other accused. On he petitioner does not deserve the concession of these grounds, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of he petitioner does not deserve the concession of these grounds, it is submitted that t regular bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
The petitioner has been in custody for a period of three years, three The petitioner has been in custody for a period of three years, three The petitioner has been in custody for a period of three years, three The petitioner has been in custody for a period of three years, three al shot resulting in the death of the deceased months and twenty-four days. The fatal shot resulting in the death of the deceased al shot resulting in the death of the deceased months and twenty has not been attributed to the present petitioner but stands specifically attributed to has not been attributed to the present petitioner but stands specifically attributed to has not been attributed to the present petitioner but stands specifically attributed to has not been attributed to the present petitioner but stands specifically attributed to the main accused Darshan Singh, who is alleged to have caused the death of his the main accused Darshan Singh, who is alleged to have caused the death of his the main accused Darshan Singh, who is alleged to have caused the death of his the main accused Darshan Singh, who is alleged to have caused the death of his TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.10 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-66882- -2025 (O&M) -4- bute any role of firing to the present own nephew. The prosecution does not attribute any role of firing to the present bute any role of firing to the present own nephew. The prosecution does not attri petitioner, nor is it the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was armed with petitioner, nor is it the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was armed with petitioner, nor is it the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was armed with petitioner, nor is it the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was armed with any weapon at the time of the occurrence. any weapon at the time of the occurrence.
It is also a matter of record that co- It is also a matter of record that co accused Avtar Singh alias Gopi and -accused Avtar Singh alias Gopi and Singh alias Lucky Pandit have already been granted the concession of Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky Pandit have already been granted the concession of Singh alias Lucky Pandit have already been granted the concession of Singh alias Lucky Pandit have already been granted the concession of regular bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court. The case of the present petitioner regular bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court. The case of the present petitioner regular bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court. The case of the present petitioner regular bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court. The case of the present petitioner stands on a better footing, as he is neither the main accused nor is he attributed the stands on a better footing, as he is neither the main accused nor is he attributed the stands on a better footing, as he is neither the main accused nor is he attributed the stands on a better footing, as he is neither the main accused nor is he attributed the role of causing the fatal injury. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was the fatal injury. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was the fatal injury. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed at a stage when material prosecution witnesses had not been examined; dismissed at a stage when material prosecution witnesses had not been examined; dismissed at a stage when material prosecution witnesses had not been examined; dismissed at a stage when material prosecution witnesses had not been examined; however, subsequent material developments have taken place inasmuch as material however, subsequent material developments have taken place inasmuch as material however, subsequent material developments have taken place inasmuch as material however, subsequent material developments have taken place inasmuch as material luding the complainant, stand examined. prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, stand examined. prosecution witnesses, inc
Keeping in view the period of custody, the absence of any specific Keeping in view the period of custody, the absence of any specific Keeping in view the period of custody, the absence of any specific Keeping in view the period of custody, the absence of any specific role of firing, the fact that the petitioner is not the main accused, and the principle role of firing, the fact that the petitioner is not the main accused, and the principle role of firing, the fact that the petitioner is not the main accused, and the principle role of firing, the fact that the petitioner is not the main accused, and the principle of parity with co-accused who have already been released of parity with co on bail, this Court is of accused who have already been released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.
Operative part
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the ed on case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be releas case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be releas regular bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction regular bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction regular bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction regular bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned . learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned
All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 10, 202 tripti , 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.10 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 148, 149, 201, 302, 452, 506; Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 5, 25, 27.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 10 Feb 2026. The bench was MANDEEP PANNU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.