Matluf Khan v. State of Punjab

IN 233-2 Matluf Kh

State of P

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1Bharatiya petitioner offences p of BNS a Station Ci

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

han

V/s Punjab

decision: 09.07.2026 Uploading : 09.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Sarvesh K. Gupta, 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.122 da punishable under Sections 103, and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 ity Banga, District 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-13508-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL cate for the petitioner. unjab. filed under Section 483 of king grant of regular bail to ated 18.11.2025, registered for 109, 324(4), 190, 191(3), 351, 9 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Pol -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,

lice hat bbu ely rds ant hey n i-

brother dr the car of intercepte As a cons and two p (brother o initially r persons w course of were reco an alterca has furthe a meeting conspirac and Sahil Khan was other co-a movemen accused. petitioner

27.11.202

¶3petitioner counsel h no overt a 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 registered against Ajay Kumar who had actively participated in investigation, statements of the orded and it has surfaced that prio ation between Sahil Bholu and t er surfaced that on 17.11.2025, a g alongwith his associates at K y was allegedly hatched to attac Bholu. As per the prosecution s one of the person present in t accused, was entrusted the task o nts of the victims and conveyi On the basis of the statements r came to be nominated as an a

¶25Learned counsel for the r has been falsely implicated as further iterated that the petitio act has been attributed to him th

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 w and certain other accused as n the attack. However, during complainant and injured witnes or to the occurrence there had be the accused side on 15.11.2025 accused Ajay Kumar had conven Kashmiri Dhaba, Mazari, where ck Harpreet Singh alias Honey B case, the petitioner namely Mat the said assembly and, along w of conducting surveillance upon ing such information to the m recorded during investigation, accused through DDR No.16 da petitioner has iterated that in the FIR in question. Learn oner was not named in the FIR a herein. Learned counsel has furth

ffic, fter, nts. ries Bal was ses een . It ned e a Bal tluf with ain ted ned and

contended suppleme the prosec the petitio Learned c the spot o been furth to commi the invest before the the petitio incarcerat likely to purpose w Learned c and there prosecutio petition in

¶4grant of b extremely death of t status rep Deputy Su learned St d that the petitioner has been n ntary statement recorded after a cution version highly doubtful. oner is a poor person and does counsel has further asserted tha of occurrence and no recovery h her contended that there is no m it the alleged offence. Learned tigation has been completed and e competent Court of jurisdictio oner is stated to be in custody si tion for a substantial period of t take a considerable amount o would be served from the contin counsel has emphasized that th e is no likelihood of his ab on evidence. On the strength of n hand is entreated 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 25.04.2026 by way of uperintendent of Police, Sub Di tate counsel has iterated that dur

nominated solely on the basis o a considerable delay which rend It has been further contended t scrap work to earn his liveliho at the petitioner was not present has been effected from him. It h motive whatsoever for the petition counsel has further submitted t challan has already been presen on. According to learned couns nce 30.11.2025 and has undergo time. As the conclusion of trial of time and, therefore, no use nued incarceration of the petition he petitioner has clean antecede sconding or tampering with aforesaid submissions, the grant 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 ring the course of investigation

of a ders hat od. t at has ner hat ted sel, one l is eful ner. ents t of n is PS, gar,

role of t witnesses allegedly status rep

the petitioner has surfaced thr , which disclose his involvem hatched against the complaina ort reads thus: "ROLE OF THE PETITIONER:

¶9That the deponent humbly specifically named in the supplem well as in the statements of other of investigation, the petitioner a the investigating officer. It is furt an active and significant role in t as, on the asking of co-accused Matluf Khan, along with other Kashmiri Dhaba, Mazari, where quarrel with and attack the brothe and in furtherance of the said c conducted recce of Harpreet S accompanying him in a car, an regarding their movement and subsequently fired upon Harpree accompanying him. True transla the complainant is annexed herew ANTECEDENTS OF THE PETITI

¶10That the deponent humbly sub of the petitioner, it has been revea 122 (supra), the petitioner is a another criminal case:

Sr. No. Detail of the case/FIR

¶1FIR No. 72 dated 22.08 Section 18 of NDPS Act Banga.

¶11That the deponent humbly su allegations against the petitioner.

rough the statements of mater ment in the criminal conspira ant party. The relevant part of submits that the petitioner has b mentary statement of the complainant r injured persons, and during the cou lso made a disclosure statement bef ther submitted that the petitioner play the commission of the offence, inasm d Ajay Kumar, the present petition members of his group, assembled e they hatched a criminal conspiracy er of the complainant and Sahil @ Bh conspiracy and pre-plan, the petitio Singh @ Honey Bal and the pers nd thereafter conveyed the informat location to the main shooters, w et Singh @ Honey Bal and the pers ated copy of supplementary statemen with as Annexure R3/T. TIONER: bmits from the verification of the rec aled that apart from the present FIR N also found to be involved in follow Status of the case/FI

8.2019, under t, PS City Convicted

27.01.2022

ubmits that there are specific and gr The petitioner, in connivance with ot

rial acy been t as urse fore ayed uch ner-d at y to holu oner sons tion who sons t of cord No. wing IR on rave

State coun there is a influence locality a allegation counsel pr

¶5perused th

¶6Court; ho principled the intere evaluate f the accuse the likely accused persons, prepared a pl criminal plan hatched by accused and other assailants opened fire of two youths. The investigation shooters are yet to be arrested, a yet to be recovered. It is further s of the prosecution are yet to be e that a fair trial requires that the in a free and fearless atmosphere exists a grave and reasonable petitioner being released on bail, the complainant and other pros evidence collected by the investiga 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 ed, the nature and gravity of the y sentence upon conviction. T

lan and then facilitated to execute d Ajay Kumar. The accused Ajay Kum in a public place, resulting in the de n of the case is still ongoing, the m and the weapons used in the offence submitted that the material/star witnes examined. It is a settled principle of complainant and other witnesses dep e, without any threat or coercion. Th apprehension that, in the event of he may attempt to overawe or influe secution witnesses or tamper with ating 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 alleged offence and the severity The Court must also assess

mar eath main are sses law pose here ence ned nce, may me tate ave and and must ing

likelihood probabilit of the a Additiona and overa Court m administra in this reg titled as S Court 349 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 not as a matter of course. Though examination of evidence and elabo case need not be undertaken, there

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 at the stage of granting bail a detai rate documentation of the merit of e is a need to indicate in such ord

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 The and iled

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 stringent and deterrent, the acc clutches of the same indulge in v

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 cused in order to get away from various activities like tampering with

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 Bal and h facilitated at the spo has reflec ultimately are ultima considera evidentiar is made o

¶8from the allegation clearly in 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 etitioner after conducting the re his associates has passed the info d the execution of the attack. Tho ot when the firing took place but cted that the petitioner was a 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 th petitioner also does not persu ns leveled against the petition ndicate his participation in the

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 ecce of Harpreet Singh alias Hon rmation to the main accused wh ough the petitioner was not pres t the investigation conducted so 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 hat no recovery has been effec uade this Court at this stage. T er are grave and specific wh e commission of the crime. T

ased and ted ant ure me. his hat ates ney ich ent far hat ons of ase ted The ich

occurrenc to severa magnitude discretion which it h discretion Court, at may prim to the pet evidence strike at th in such ca also embo State that same loca accusation to have b prayer for

¶9petitioner case, this to the con

10.

(i) dismissed ce in question has resulted in the al others. In the considered o e and seriousness of the crim nary relief of bail. The gravity has been committed are relevan n under Section 483 of BNSS. this stage, no accentuating circ ma facie constitute a compelling g titioner, especially in light of the on record. It is also to be borne i he very root of public order and ases would not only undermine olden the accused. Furthermore, t the petitioner may influence ality, also cannot be said to be u ns, the nature of the offence and been committed are relevant co r grant of regular bail. In view of the nature of alle r during investigation and the ove Court is of the considered opini ncession of regular bail. In view of the prevenient rati The present petition is d d.

e death of two persons and injur opinion of this Court, the ve me disentitle the petitioner to of the offence and the manner nt considerations while exercisi In the considered opinion of t cumstances have been made wh ground for the grant of regular b e gravity of the allegations and in mind that offences of this natu d societal conscience. Granting b the gravity of the offence but m the apprehension expressed by the witnesses, who belong to unfounded. The seriousness of d the manner in which it is alleg onsiderations while adjudicating egations, the role attributed to erall facts and circumstances of on that the petitioner is not entit iocination, it is ordained thus: devoid of merits and is here

ries ery r in ing this ich bail ure bail may ged g a led

(ii) shall not h as also the being infl

(iii)

July 09, 2 Ajay

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

/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

ove ncy