Ram Lubhaya v. State of Punjab

IN 233-1 Ram Lubh

State of P

Date of d Date of U CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1Bharatiya petitioner offences p and Sectio Banga, Di

¶2on 17.11 Maan wa Harpreet S Phagwara that his b reached n 20 car all THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

haya

V/s Punjab

decision: 09.07.2026 Uploading : 09.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Sarju Puri, Senior Advoc Ms. Damanpreet Kaur, Advo Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Pu ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been a Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita see r in case bearing FIR No.0122 d punishable under Sections 103, ons 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arm istrict SBS Sagar. The prosecution case, as set- .2025, the complainant namely as present at his shop. At abou Singh alias Honey Bal along wit a in his Scorpio car. It has been brother Harpreet Singh honey w near Ritha Ram School, some pe egedly opened fire on his broth

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-3703-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL cate with oate for the petitioner. unjab. filed under Section 483 of king grant of regular bail to dated 18.11.2025, registered for 109, 324(4), 190, 191(3) of BN ms Act, 1959 at Police Station C -out in the petition in hand, is t y Pawandeep Singh alias Bab ut 03:00 PM, his brother nam th his associates was going towa further alleged by the complain was driving the car and when th ersons who were travelling in an er and in an attempt to escape,

NS City hat bbu ely rds ant hey n i-

brother dr the car of intercepte As a cons and two p (brother o initially n accused p course of were reco an alterca investigat Ajay Kum wherein t hatched. C came to b

¶3petitioner counsel h no overt a further co of a supp renders t contended anteceden rove the car towards Banga Bus f his brother got struck in traffic ed the vehicle and indiscriminate sequence of the firing, multiple persons i.e., Rimplejit Singh an of FIR-complainant) succumbe named Ajay Kumar son of the p persons as active participants in investigation, statements of the orded and it had surfaced that pri ation between Sahil Bholu and th tion further reflect that the pres mar and other associates, had alle the conspiracy to attack the Consequently, vide DDR No.16 be nominated as an accused in the Learned senior counsel for t r has been falsely implicated in t as further iterated that the petitio act has been attributed to him th ontended that the petitioner has b plementary statement recorded the prosecution version highly d that the petitioner is a 66-ye nts and has no criminal histo

Stand area. Owing to heavy traff c jam and the assailants, thereaft ely fired gunshots at its occupan persons sustained firearm injur nd Harpreet Singh alias Honey B ed to their injuries. The FIR h present petitioner and certain oth n the attack. However, during complainant and injured witnes or to the occurrence there had be he accused side on 15.11.2025. T sent petitioner, along with his s egedly participated in the meetin complainant party was alleged 6 dated 27.11.2025, the petition e present case. the petitioner has iterated that the FIR in question. Learned sen oner was not named in the FIR a herein. Learned senior counsel h been nominated solely on the ba after a considerable delay wh y doubtful. It has been furth ar-old senior citizen having cle ory. Learned senior counsel h

ffic, fter, nts. ries Bal had her ses een The son ngs dly ner nior has asis ich her ean

emphasize abroad an activities petitioner been effe petitioner accused n motive wh senior co completed Court of j stated to b a substan considera served fr counsel h no likelih On the st entreated

¶4grant of b extremely death of t status rep Deputy Su ed that the petitioner has spent nd, after returning to India, has b in his village. Learned senior co r was never present at the spot o ected from him. Learned senio r has been implicated only bec namely Ajay Kumar. It has been hatsoever for the petitioner to co ounsel has further submitted d and challan has already been jurisdiction. According to learne be in custody since 27.11.2025 a tial period of time. As the con able amount of time and, theref rom continued incarceration o as emphasized that the petitioner ood of his absconding or tamper trength of aforesaid submission for. Per contra, learned State co bail to the petitioner by arguin y grave in nature involving a p two persons and firearm injuries port dated 13.05.2026 by way of uperintendent of Police, Sub Di

t more than two decades worki een engaged in social and religio ounsel has further asserted that of occurrence and no recovery h or counsel also contends that ause he is the father of the m n further contended that there is ommit the alleged offence. Learn that the investigation has be n presented before the compet ed senior counsel, the petitioner and has undergone incarceration nclusion of trial is likely to take fore, no useful purpose would of the petitioner. Learned sen r has clean antecedents and there ring with the prosecution eviden ns, the grant of petition in hand ounsel has vehemently opposed ng that the offence in question pre-planned attack resulting in s to several others. Referring to f an affidavit of Harjit Singh, PP ivision Banga, District SBS Nag

ing ous has ain ned een ent r is for e a be nior e is nce. d is n is PS, gar,

learned St role of t witnesses allegedly status rep tate counsel has iterated that dur the petitioner has surfaced thr , which disclose his involvem hatched against the complaina ort reads thus: "10. ROLE OF THE PETITIONE That the deponent humbly submits named in the supplementary stat the statements of other injur investigation, it has been revealed place between the injured Sahil @ of Balwinder Kumar regarding c accused Ajay Kumar and his f petitioner), extended threats to th revealed during investigation tha injured Sahil @ Bholu and the Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal gathered at the bus stand for a c was asked to tender an apology, the accused, including the presen with each other, hatched a crimin (brother of the complainant) and investigation, the petitioner also investigating officer, wherein he Ajay Kumar called the other mem Mazari, and planned an attack on @ Bholu. Thereafter, Ajay Ku accomplices proceeded towards bearing registration No. PB-32-A with accused Jaswinder Singh registration No. PB-32-B-0582. the instance of his son Ajay Kum Charanjit Singh @ Channi, Harp and Matloof Khan, conducted rec others in the area of Mukandpur R

11. CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS

ring the course of investigation rough the statements of mater ment in the criminal conspira ant party. The relevant part of ER s that the petitioner has been specifica tement of the complainant as well as red persons. During the course d that on 15.11.2025, an altercation t @ Bholu and accused Saurav Kumar collision of a scooty. On the same d father, namely Ram Lubhaya (pres he injured Sahil @ Bholu. It was furt at on the next day, i.e., 16.11.2025, e brother of the complainant, nam l, along with other accused perso compromise. The injured Sahil @ Bh but he refused to do so. Thereupon, nt petitioner/Ram Lubhaya in conniva nal conspiracy to attack Harpreet Sin d Sahil @ Bholu. During the course made a disclosure statement before e disclosed that on 17.11.2025, his mbers of his group at Kashmiri Dha n Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal and Sa Kumar (main shooter) along with the shop of the complainant in a -AA-7878, whereas the petitioner alo @ Jassi went in another car bear The petitioner further disclosed that mar and his accomplices, he, along w preet Singh @ Happy, Shubham Sharm cce of Harpreet Singh @ Honey Bal a Road, Banga. OF PETITIONER:

rial acy ally s in of ook son day, sent ther mely ons, holu all ance ngh e of son aba, ahil his car ong ring t at with ma,

State coun there is a influence locality a allegation counsel pr

¶5perused th

¶6Court; ho principled the intere evaluate f That the deponent humbly submi petitioner, it has been revealed (supra), the petitioner is not invol

¶12That the deponent humbly su allegations against the petitioner son and other accused persons, p execute the criminal plan hatched petitioner and his accomplices op the death of two youths. The inve main shooters are yet to be arres are yet to be recovered. It is f witnesses of the prosecution ar principle of law that a fair trial witnesses depose in a free and fea coercion. There exists a grave an event of the petitioner being relea or influence the complainant and with the evidence collected by the Raising submission in tandem nsel has submitted that in view a strong likelihood that if rele or intimidate the prosecution w and thereby hamper the trial. ns, the gravity of the offence an rays for the dismissal of the insta I have heard learned couns he available record. The grant of bail falls withi owever, such discretion must d manner, ensuring it aligns wit sts of justice. While considering factors such as the existence of

its from the verification of record of d that except the present FIR No. 1 lved in any other criminal case. ubmits that there are specific and gr r. The petitioner, in connivance with prepared a plan and then facilitated d by his son Ajay Kumar. The son of pened fire in a public place, resulting estigation of the case is still ongoing, ted, and the weapons used in the offe further submitted that the material/s re yet to be examined. It is a sett requires that the complainant and ot arless atmosphere, without any threa nd reasonable apprehension that, in ased on bail, he may attempt to overa d other prosecution witnesses or tam e investigating agency." m with the aforesaid reply, learn w of the seriousness of the offen eased on bail, the petitioner m witnesses, who belong to the sa . In view of the nature of nd the stage of trial learned St ant petition. sel for the rival parties and ha in the discretionary domain of be exercised in a judicious a th established legal precedents a g a bail application, the Court m f prima facie evidence implicati

f the rave his d to f the g in ence star tled ther t or awe mper ned nce, may me tate ave must

the accuse the likely likelihood probabilit of the a Additiona and overa Court m administra in this reg titled as S Court 349 ed, the nature and gravity of the y sentence upon conviction. T d of the accused absconding or e ty of the offence being repeated accused tampering with evid ally, the character, antecedents, all conduct of the accused play must weigh the potential da ation of justice or thwarting its gard is made to the judgment pas State through C.B.I. vs. Amaram 90, relevant whereof reads as und

¶14It is well settled that the m for bail are (i)whether there is any believe that the accused had committ the charge; (iii) severity of the pun danger of accused absconding or fl behaviour, means, position and stand offence being repeated; (vii) reasona tampered with; and (viii) danger, o grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 allegation that accused may tamper be a ground to refuse bail, if the acc presence at large would intimidate show that he will use his liberty evidence, then bail will be refused principles relating to grant or refu Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) R 528 :"The law in regard to grant or court granting bail should exercise

alleged offence and the severity The Court must also assess evading the due process of law, d and any reasonable apprehensi dence or influencing witness financial means, societal standi y a crucial role. Furthermore, anger of bail undermining due course. A profitable referen ssed by the Hon'ble Supreme Co mani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Suprem der: matters to be considered in an applicat y prima facie or reasonable ground ted the offence; (ii) nature and gravity nishment in the event of conviction; leeing if released on bail; (v) charac ding of the accused;(vi) likelihood of able apprehension of the witnesses be of course, of justice being thwarted h Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) R C 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. St Supreme Court 179). While a vag with the evidence or witnesses may cused is of such character that his m the witnesses or if there is material to subvert justice or tamper with d. We may also refer to the follow usal of bail stated in Kalyan Chan RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) S r refusal of bail is very well settled. its discretion in a judicious manner a

y of ion ses. ing nce ourt me tion d to y of

(iv) cter, f the eing d by RCR tate gue not mere l to wing dra SCC

not as a matter of course. Though examination of evidence and elabo case need not be undertaken, there reasons for prima facie concluding w where the accused is charged of ha order devoid of such reasons would s also necessary for the court gran circumstances, the following factors a. The nature of accusation and conviction and the nature of supporti b. Reasonable apprehension of tamp of threat to the complainant. c. Prima facie satisfaction of the co Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Sin 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ra

(SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338." This Court also in specific terms h "the condition laid down under sectio bail even under section 439 of the C that the High Court has given the pe by the accused and the unlikelihood grounds sufficient to enlarge the acc accused stands charged of offences even death penalty. In such cases, accused has undergone certain peri case) by itself would not entitle the the fact that the trial is not likely to b itself or coupled with the period of enlarging the appellant on bail wh severe and there are allegations of accused during the period he was on In Panchanan Mishra v. Digamb : 2005(1) RCR(Criminal) 712 observed : "The object underlying the cance and secure justice being done to who is set at liberty by the bail or the heinous crime..... It hardly re released on bail in serious crimi

at the stage of granting bail a detai rate documentation of the merit of e is a need to indicate in such ord why bail was being granted particula aving committed a serious offence. A suffer from non-application of mind. I nting bail to consider among ot also before granting bail; they are: the severity of punishment in case ing evidence. pering with the witness or apprehens ourt in support of the charge. (see R ngh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC am Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 8 held that : on 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for grant Code. In the impugned order it is noti eriod of incarceration already underg of trial concluding in the near future cused on bail, in spite of the fact that s punishable with life imprisonment in our opinion, the mere fact that iod of incarceration (three years in accused to being enlarged on bail, be concluded in the near future either of incarceration would be sufficient en the gravity of the offence alleged of tampering with the witnesses by bail." bar Mishra, 2005(1) Apex Criminal 3

(SC) : 2005(3) SCC 143, this Co ellation of bail is to protect the fair t o the society by preventing the accu rder from tampering with the evidence quires to be stated that once a person nal cases where the punishment is qu

iled ders arly Any It is ther e of sion Ram C) : ting iced one e as t or this nor r by for d is ourt trial used e in n is

¶7the mater occurrenc by a grou party and death of t and mann Though t subsequen ground. T that the p occurrenc with his s further re ultimately are ultima considera evidentiar is made o

¶8was not p at this sta stringent and deterrent, the acc clutches of the same indulge in v prosecution witnesses, threatenin victim and also create problems of The factual matrix of the ca rial collected during the course ce in question is a broad daylight up of armed assailants who chas d opened indiscriminate fire in a two individuals and serious fire ner of the offence, at this stage, the petitioner was not named nt nomination cannot be brushed The material collected during th petitioner has been attributed ce. The prosecution case is that o son Ajay Kumar, had threatened eflected that the petitioner was y led to the commission of the o ately proved or not is a matter ation of bail, this Court is not req ry value of such material but onl ut. The plea of the petitioner tha present at the scene of occurrence age. The allegations leveled ag

cused in order to get away from various activities like tampering with ng the family members of the decea of law and order situation." ase, as emerging from the FIR a of investigation, reflects that t firing incident allegedly execu sed the vehicle of the complain a public area which resulted in earm injuries to others. The natu reflect a grave and heinous crim in the FIR in question but d aside at this stage merely on t he course of investigation indica a role in the events prior to on 15.11.2025 the petitioner, alo Sahil Bholu. The investigation h s part of the chain of events t offence. Whether these allegatio r of trial; however, at the stage quired to meticulously examine y to see whether a prima facie ca at petitioner is a senior citizen a e also does not persuade this Co gainst the petitioner are grave a

ased ted ant ure me. his hat ates ong has hat ons of ase

specific w the crime persons a Court, th petitioner the manne exercising of this Co which ma regular b allegation offences o conscienc gravity of apprehens witnesses unfounded and the m considera

¶9the role at and circum the petitio

¶10which clearly indicate his active e. The occurrence in question and injuries to several victims. he very magnitude and serious r to the discretionary relief of ba er in which it has been committe g discretion under Section 483 o ourt, at this stage, no accentuati ay prima facie constitute a co bail to the petitioner, especiall ns and the evidence on record. I of this nature strike at the very ce. Granting bail in such case f the offence but may also embo sion expressed by the State tha , who belong to the same loc d. The seriousness of the accus manner in which it is alleged to ations while adjudicating a prayer In view of the gravity of the ttributed to the petitioner during mstances of the case, this Cour oner is not entitled to the concess In view of the prevenient rati

participation in the commission has resulted in the death of t In the considered opinion of t sness of the crime disentitles ail. The gravity of the offence a ed are relevant considerations wh of BNSS. In the considered opini ing circumstances have been ma mpelling ground for the grant ly in light of the gravity of It is also to be borne in mind t y root of public order and socie s would not only undermine olden the accused. Furthermore, at the petitioner may influence cality, also cannot be said to sations, the nature of the offen have been committed are relev r for grant of regular bail. e offence, the nature of allegatio investigation, and the overall fa rt is of the considered opinion t sion of regular bail. iocination, it is ordained thus:

n of two this hile ion ade of hat etal be nce, ant ons, acts

(i) dismissed

(ii) shall not h as also the being infl

(iii)

July 09, 2 Ajay

The present petition is d d. Any observations made and/ have any effect on merits of the e trial Court shall proceed furthe luenced with this order. Pending application(s), if any

2026

devoid of merits and is here /or submissions noted hereinabo e case and the investigating agen er, in accordance with law, witho y, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

eby ove ncy