Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Regular Bail in Brutal Murder Case; Notes Specific Naming by Deceased and Gravity of Offences Under BNS and Arms Act
Case Name: Taranpreet Singh @ Taran @ Titli v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 15 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-28340-2025 and CRM-M-65270-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that regular bail cannot be granted in a case involving a brutal homicidal assault where the deceased had specifically named the accused prior to death, the allegations disclose active participation, and the offences carry severe punishment. The Court held that seriousness of the crime, nature of injuries, and prima facie evidence outweigh the plea of prolonged custody at the stage when trial has commenced.
Summary: The petitions were filed seeking regular bail in FIR No.189 dated 02.10.2024 registered under Sections 103(1), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
The FIR was lodged on the statement of Manjit Singh, alleging that his son Tarandeep Singh @ Nannu was attacked with sharp-edged weapons by the petitioners and other co-accused, who arrived in a black Scorpio vehicle. The deceased allegedly named the accused before losing consciousness. He was taken to IVY Hospital, Khanna, where he was declared dead. The post-mortem revealed multiple grievous injuries.
During investigation, the petitioners were arrested on different dates, challan was presented, charges were framed, and the trial commenced. Their bail applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court, leading to the present petitions.
The petitioners contended that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, that the alleged dying declaration was fabricated, that there was no possibility of the deceased surviving long enough to name the assailants, and that prosecution witnesses were delaying the trial. It was further argued that some petitioners had been acquitted in other cases and were falsely implicated.
The State and the complainant opposed the petitions, contending that the deceased had specifically named the accused, the attack was brutal and premeditated, and the petitioners were habitual offenders.
The High Court held that the FIR, supplementary statement, medical evidence and allegations collectively disclose a prima facie case of a planned and violent assault. The Court observed that the deceased naming the accused prior to death carried evidentiary value at the bail stage. It further held that the gravity of offences, severity of punishment, and the stage of trial disentitled the petitioners from the concession of bail.
Decision: The bail petitions were dismissed.