SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Karan Partap Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 May, 2017

CRM No.M-16719 of 2017 1


CRM No.M-16719 of 2017
Decided on: 25.05.2017

Karan Partap Singh
State of Punjab


Present : Mr. M.S. Basra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the complainant.


The petitioner prays for grant of regular bail under Section

439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in FIR No.51

dated 28.02.2016, for offence punishable under Sections 302, 354 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and

25/27 of the Arms Act registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Batala,

District Gurdaspur.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per

allegations raised in the FIR, the petitioner took out a revolver and

handed it over to Parminder Singh @ Manna who fired a shot at

Rupinder Kaur wife of complainant – Sukhdev Singh. It is further

submitted that unfortunate occurrence in question took place when

Sukhdev Singh and his family as well as the accused had gone to attend

Shagun ceremony of Rajbir Singh son of Sarwan Singh on 28.02.2016

in Dhindsa Marriage Palace, Batala. It is further submitted that

Sukhdev Singh was examined before the trial Court and he has not

1 of 3
08-06-2017 19:14:32 :::
CRM No.M-16719 of 2017 2

attributed any overt act to the petitioner with regard to handing over the

revolver to Parminder Singh @ Manna who purportedly fired a shot

towards Rupinder Kaur which hit on the left side of her head. It is

further argued that material witnesses in the case have already been

examined but conclusion of the trial may take some more time.

Counsel representing State of Punjab has submitted that

the first occurrence constituting offence under Section 354 IPC

occurred at 02:30 PM when Parminder Singh @ Manna, Dilbagh Singh

@ Bagha and Karan Partap Singh @ Karan (petitioner herein) teased

wife of the complainant – Rupinder Kaur (since deceased) when she

had gone to buy balloons for her children near the main gate of the

palace. For the second time at about 03:30 PM, the aforesaid persons

raised lalkaras. Dilbagh Singh @ Bagha said “what are you waiting for,

they have insulted us.” In the meanwhile, Karan Partap Singh @ Karan

took out a revolver, handed it over to Parminder Singh @ Manna and he

fired a shot at Rupinder Kaur which hit on left side of her head and

proved fatal. It is argued with vehemence that in view of gravity of

offence attributed to the petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged

on bail particularly in the circumstances that the prosecution is likely to

close its evidence within a short span of time.

Counsel for the complainant has echoed the arguments

advanced by counsel for the State with the submission that out of 06

witnesses that remain to be examined, 02 are bound down for

30.05.2017 and the prosecution is likely to conclude its evidence


I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the paperbook

2 of 3
08-06-2017 19:14:33 :::
CRM No.M-16719 of 2017 3

and the police records.

The petitioner has been attributed a specific role both in

regard to the occurrence that took place at 02:30 PM with regard to

teasing Rupinder Kaur as well as the occurrence that happened at 03:30

PM. All the three accused came together, started raising lalkaras,

Dilbagh Singh extorted others, the present petitioner took out a revolver

but shot was fired by Parminder Singh @ Manna. Admittedly, the

material witnesses in the case have already been examined. The

prosecution undertakes to conclude its evidence within a short span of


In view of the above, without commenting upon merits of

the case, in case the prosecution fails to conclude its evidence by

30.07.2017, without any fault attributable to the petitioner, the

petitioner shall be released on bail subject to satisfaction of the trial

Court. In case he is released on bail, he shall abide by the following


(i) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade his/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(ii) He shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court.

25.05.2017 (REKHA MITTAL)
yakub JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
08-06-2017 19:14:33 :::

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