SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gopal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 March, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

CRM-M-12707-2021 [ 1 ]


Date of Decision: 25.03.2021

Gopal Singh ……………………………………Petitioner


State of Punjab…………………………………. Respondent


(through video conferencing)

Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Randhir Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.


This is second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 146 dated 02.12.2019 under

Sections 302, 120B, 498A and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Cantt.

Bathinda, District Bathinda.

At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner requests for

adding section 304-B IPC in the prayer clause of the petition as the same

was added later on.

On oral request of the petitioner, Section 304-B IPC is added in

the head note and prayer clause of the petition. Registry is directed to make

necessary correction.

1 of 3
26-03-2021 21:36:20 :::
CRM-M-12707-2021 [ 2 ]

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of

the contents of the FIR clearly reveal that the petitioner, who is the husband

of the deceased, was not at the place of occurrence when the deceased Rajni

@ Lakshmi was found lying dead on the bed inside their house. It has been

submitted that in fact it was the co-accused Sham Singh and Ram Singh,

brothers of the petitioner, who came out of the house of the petitioner

holding electricity wires along with the daughter of the deceased when the

complainant knocked at the door on hearing some commotion. The learned

counsel submits that the contents of the FIR clearly reveal that the petitioner

who is serving in the Army was not even at the place of occurrence at the

time of the alleged incident as he was on duty at Bathinda Cantt. and hence

could not be even remotely linked to the alleged crime. Learned counsel

further submits that the petitioner is behind bars since 04.12.2019 and the

trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.

Per contra the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI

Karanjit Singh, has not been able to controvert the submissions made by the

counsel for the petitioner qua the petitioner not being present at the place of

occurrence nor any allegation having been levelled against him by the



In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel and

keeping in view that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.12.2019 and

no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars as the trial is

unlikely to conclude in the near future, I deem it a fit case to grant the

concession of regular bail. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is

admitted to bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However,

2 of 3
26-03-2021 21:36:21 :::
CRM-M-12707-2021 [ 3 ]

it is made clear that any observation made herein shall not be construed as

an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

25.03.2021 JUDGE

Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable: Yes / No

3 of 3
26-03-2021 21:36:21 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation