The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to two petitioners accused of criminal conspiracy in a murder case, emphasizing that mere allegations of conspiracy, without any overt act or recovered incriminating material, and with exonerating witness testimony, do not justify continued incarceration. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail must be the rule, not the exception, particularly when the evidence against the accused is weak and co-accused have already been released.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The present petitions arise from FIR No. 191 dated 05.06.2025, registered at Police Station City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, under Sections 103, 191(3), 190, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case involves the alleged murder of Ashu Monga, who was shot dead on 05.06.2025 at a tattoo shop in front of Dr. Daljit Singh’s clinic. The complainant, Pawandeep Kaur, wife of the deceased, alleged that the petitioners - Joginder Singh @ Lalu and Amrik Singh @ Amrika - along with co-accused Gurdit Singh, Angrej Singh, Ashish Chopra, and Yuvraj @ Yuvi, conspired to kill the deceased. The actual shooting was allegedly carried out by Shivam Sehgal @ Shanga and Yuvraj @ Yuvi.
Key Facts
- The deceased, Ashu Monga, was shot dead at approximately 2:30 p.m. on 05.06.2025.
- The complainant arrived at the scene at 3:00 p.m. and witnessed Shivam Sehgal and Yuvraj fleeing with four to five unidentified persons, all armed with pistols.
- The deceased was found dead with a gunshot wound to the right eye.
- No weapon or incriminating material was recovered from the petitioners.
- A cross-case, Rapat No. 4, was registered on 06.06.2025 based on the statement of Arshdeep Singh, owner of the tattoo shop, alleging that the deceased and his companions had come to kill Shivam Sehgal and Yuvraj.
- The petitioners were arrested on 10.06.2025.
- The complainant, Pawandeep Kaur, was examined before the trial court and declared hostile.
- In her testimony, she stated she had never named the petitioners or co-accused Gurdit Singh and Angrej Singh before the police.
- She explicitly denied knowing the petitioners and identified only Shivam Sehgal and Simranpreet as perpetrators.
- Investigation has been completed.
- Co-accused Angrej Singh, Shivam Sehgal, and Simranpreet have already been granted regular bail by this Court.
Procedural History
- 05.06.2025: Murder of Ashu Monga; FIR No. 191 registered.
- 06.06.2025: Rapat No. 4 registered as cross-case.
- 10.06.2025: Petitioners arrested.
- 27.04.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 29.04.2026: Judgment pronounced and uploaded.
The Parties' Positions
The petitioners contend they have been falsely implicated. They argue that no overt act is attributed to them, no weapon was recovered from them, and the sole witness against them has exonerated them in court. They highlight that co-accused in similar positions have been granted bail, and their continued detention serves no useful purpose.
The State opposes bail, arguing that the petitioners were part of a serious criminal conspiracy to commit murder, are habitual offenders, and pose a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
Relief Sought
The petitioners seek release on regular bail, citing the absence of incriminating evidence, completion of investigation, prolonged custody since 10.06.2025, and the principle of parity with co-accused already released.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the allegations of criminal conspiracy, without any overt act, recovered weapon, or corroborative evidence, and in light of a hostile witness exonerating the accused, justify denial of regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned senior counsel argued that the petitioners are not alleged to have fired the fatal shots or possessed any weapon. The only basis of accusation is conspiracy, which is uncorroborated. The complainant, the sole eyewitness, has categorically denied knowing the petitioners and has not named them in her testimony. The cross-case version further undermines the prosecution’s narrative. The petitioners have been in custody for over ten months, and their continued detention is unjustified. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and State of Rajasthan v. Balchand to emphasize that bail should not be denied merely on the gravity of the offence or speculative risks.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the conspiracy to commit murder is a grave offence under the BNS and Arms Act, and the petitioners’ involvement, even if indirect, makes them dangerous. It argued that the nature of the crime, the presence of firearms, and the possibility of witness intimidation justify denial of bail. The State also cited the potential for the petitioners to abscond, given the presence of a co-accused residing abroad.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the evidence on record, particularly the testimony of the complainant, Pawandeep Kaur. The Court noted that she was declared hostile and, despite being cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, maintained that she had never named the petitioners before the police and did not know them. This testimony, the Court held, significantly weakens the prosecution’s case against the petitioners.
"She had not taken the name of either of the petitioners or co-accused Gurdit Singh and Angrej Singh."
The Court further emphasized that no weapon or incriminating material was recovered from the petitioners, and no overt act was attributed to them in the FIR or charge sheet. The allegations against them are confined to conspiracy, which, in the absence of any corroborative evidence or direct participation, cannot be treated as sufficient to deny bail.
The Court also considered the principle of parity, noting that co-accused Shivam Sehgal, Simranpreet, and Angrej Singh - whose roles were arguably more direct or equally speculative - had already been granted regular bail. Denying bail to the petitioners on the same facts would violate the doctrine of equal treatment under law.
The Court observed that the investigation is complete, and the petitioners have been in custody since 10.06.2025. There is no indication that their release would impede the trial. The Court held that the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must prevail unless there is a compelling reason to deny bail, which is absent here.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court allowed the petitions and ordered the release of Joginder Singh @ Lalu and Amrik Singh @ Amrika on regular bail. They are required to furnish personal bonds and surety bonds by two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate. The conditions of bail include: (i) no tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses; (ii) no travel abroad without court permission; (iii) appearance before the trial court as directed; (iv) disclosure and non-change of residential address without informing the IO/SHO; and (v) provision of active mobile numbers to the IO/SHO and keeping phones switched on at all times. The Court clarified that this order has no bearing on the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Conspiracy Alone Is Not Sufficient to Deny Bail
- Practitioners must argue that allegations of conspiracy without overt acts, recovered weapons, or corroborative evidence cannot justify denial of bail under Section 439 CrPC or BNS 2023.
- Where the sole witness exonerates the accused, bail must be granted unless the prosecution presents independent evidence of involvement.
Parity in Bail Grants Is Legally Binding
- When co-accused in materially identical positions are granted bail, denial to others on the same facts constitutes arbitrariness and violates Article 14.
- Courts must justify deviations from parity with concrete, case-specific reasons - not generalizations about gravity of offence.
Hostile Witness Testimony Can Be Decisive
- A hostile witness’s exonerating testimony, even if inconsistent with earlier statements, must be weighed seriously in bail proceedings.
- If the prosecution’s case rests on a single witness who later denies implicating the accused, the court must treat the case as weak for bail purposes.
Custody Duration Must Be Factored In
- Prolonged pre-trial detention, especially beyond ten months in a completed investigation, weighs heavily in favor of release.
- Courts must not treat bail as punishment; the presumption of innocence remains intact until conviction.
