Police Said ‘Innocent’, Trial Court Summoned Them: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Murder Case
Case Name: Yashvardhan Rajput and Another v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 09 March 2026
Citation: CRM-M-71972-2025
Bench: Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused regular bail to the accused in a murder case, holding that once the trial court had taken cognizance and summoned them to face trial despite the police recommending their discharge, their presence at the crime scene and the seriousness of the allegations justified denial of bail at the present stage.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No. 70 dated 15.05.2025 registered under Sections 109, 103(1), 190, 191(3) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Satnampura, Phagwara, District Kapurthala.
According to the prosecution, the FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by Ahmed Mohamed Nour Ahmed Hussen. The complainant alleged that on 15 May 2025 at around 4:00 a.m., he and his friends had gone outside after offering prayers when 6–7 unidentified persons began abusing them and demanded the mobile numbers of their sisters. When the complainant and his companions objected to the conduct, the assailants allegedly attacked them with knives.
During the incident, the complainant and his friend Mohamed Wada Bala Yousif Ahmed sustained injuries. Both were taken to Johal Hospital, where Mohamed Wada Bala Yousif Ahmed was declared dead while the complainant was admitted with serious injuries. During the course of investigation, the names of the accused persons, including the present petitioners, surfaced as individuals who had allegedly attacked the complainant and the deceased with knives.
The petitioners contended that they had been falsely implicated. It was argued that CCTV footage of the occurrence showed that petitioner Yashvardhan Rajput was merely standing at the spot empty-handed, while petitioner Kunwar Amar Pratap Singh was seen holding bricks but was not shown inflicting any injury upon the complainant or the deceased. On this basis, the investigating agency initially found the petitioners innocent and submitted a report recommending their discharge before the trial court.
However, the trial court did not accept the report and instead ordered further investigation. After reinvestigation, the investigating agency again recommended discharge of the petitioners. Despite this, the Magistrate declined to accept the recommendation and summoned the petitioners along with other co-accused to face trial. The order of summoning was also upheld in revision proceedings.
Opposing the bail plea, the State argued that although the investigating agency had initially found the petitioners innocent, the Magistrate had independently assessed the material on record and taken cognizance of the offence. The complainant also opposed the bail application, contending that the petitioners were part of the unlawful assembly involved in the attack and that their presence at the scene was clearly established through CCTV footage.
The High Court observed that although the investigating agency had recommended discharge, the trial court had disagreed with that conclusion and summoned the petitioners to face trial after considering the material on record. The Court further noted that the case was still at a nascent stage as it had not yet been committed to the Court of Sessions and some co-accused had yet to appear before the court.
The Court also observed that the presence of the petitioners at the scene of the occurrence was evident from CCTV footage, and one of the petitioners was seen holding bricks during the incident. Therefore, at this stage it could not be conclusively said that the petitioners had no role in the occurrence.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the stage of the proceedings and the possibility that the petitioners could influence witnesses or interfere with the trial, the Court held that the case was not fit for granting regular bail.
Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking regular bail filed by the petitioners, holding that the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of the trial did not justify grant of bail at this stage.