The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that mere inclusion in an FIR based on disclosure statements of co-accused, without direct involvement or eyewitness corroboration, cannot sustain denial of bail - especially when material witnesses have turned hostile and the trial is prolonged. This order underscores the necessity of substantive evidence over speculative linkage in bail proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Two petitions, CRM-M-13689-2026 and CRM-M-15889-2026, were filed by Karan and Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 18 dated 09.03.2025, registered at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar Rural. The FIR was filed by complainant Gurwinder Singh under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2), 254, 249, 247, 262, and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), corresponding to Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 216A, 212, 210, 224, and 202 of the IPC, along with Sections 25 and 54 of the Arms Act.
Key Facts
- On 08.03.2025, during a langar at a village in Amritsar Rural, Varinder Pal Singh @ Vicky was shot dead by three individuals who arrived on a motorcycle.
- The prosecution alleged that the shooters were Bikramjit Singh, Sharanjeet Singh, and Bishambarjit Singh (the latter deceased).
- Neither petitioner was alleged to have been present at the scene during the firing.
- On 10.03.2025, after arrest of accused Pardeep Kumar, a disclosure statement led to implicating nine additional persons, including Karan and Gagandeep Singh.
- On 28.03.2025, Sharanjeet Singh alias Sharan was arrested; his disclosure statement led to nomination of Karan as an accused via Rapat No. 26 dated 03.04.2025.
- On 17.04.2025, Bikramjit Singh alias Bikka was arrested; his disclosure statement led to nomination of Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan via Rapat No. 22 dated 17.04.2025.
- The prosecution’s case against both petitioners rests entirely on these disclosure statements.
- Two material witnesses - complainant Gurwinder Singh (PW1) and Mehnga Singh (PW2) - resiled from their earlier statements and turned hostile during trial, as evidenced by their deposition dated 05.02.2026 (Annexures P-3 and P-4).
- A total of 33 persons were arrayed as accused during investigation.
- Karan has been in custody since April 2025; Gagandeep Singh since April 2025 - approximately one year and one month at the time of hearing.
- Seven co-accused - Kanwaljit Kaur, Amrik Singh, Pardeep Kumar, Anshuman @ Danish, Sukhwinder Kaur, Kulwant Singh, and Sarabjit Singh - were granted regular bail by this Court on 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-5).
Procedural History
- 08.03.2025: Alleged murder of Varinder Pal Singh @ Vicky during langar.
- 09.03.2025: FIR No. 18 registered at Police Station Mehta.
- 10.03.2025: Arrest of Pardeep Kumar; disclosure statement leads to naming of nine additional accused.
- 11.03.2025: Supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. adds three more accused.
- 28.03.2025: Arrest of Sharanjeet Singh alias Sharan; disclosure implicates Karan.
- 17.04.2025: Arrest of Bikramjit Singh alias Bikka; disclosure implicates Gagandeep Singh.
- 03.04.2025: Karan formally added as accused via Rapat No. 26.
- 17.04.2025: Gagandeep Singh formally added as accused via Rapat No. 22.
- 26.02.2026: Seven co-accused granted regular bail by this Court.
- 04.05.2026: Petitions for bail heard and decided by the High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought immediate release on regular bail, arguing that: (i) they were not present at the scene of crime; (ii) the case against them rests solely on inadmissible disclosure statements; (iii) material witnesses have turned hostile; and (iv) co-accused with similar or greater involvement have already been granted bail.
The Legal Issue
Can a petitioner be denied regular bail in a serious criminal case where the allegations against them are not based on direct eyewitness testimony, but solely on inadmissible disclosure statements of co-accused, and where the only material witnesses have turned hostile?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel argued that disclosure statements under Section 162 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible as substantive evidence under Section 162 Cr.P.C. and cannot form the sole basis for continued detention. The petitioners were never identified by any eyewitness at the scene. The two material witnesses - Gurwinder Singh and Mehnga Singh - had deposed in court on 05.02.2026 and retracted their earlier statements, thereby collapsing the prosecution’s evidentiary foundation. The prolonged custody of over one year, coupled with the fact that seven co-accused with comparable or stronger links to the crime had already been granted bail, rendered continued detention unjustified. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra to emphasize that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not dispute the factual position. The Deputy Advocate General conceded that the petitioners were not alleged to have been present at the scene, that the material witnesses had turned hostile, and that the case against them was based on disclosure statements. The State offered no counter-evidence or legal argument to justify continued denial of bail.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the prosecution’s case against the petitioners is entirely circumstantial and rests on disclosures made by co-accused, which are expressly non-admissible as evidence under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court emphasized that such statements cannot be used to establish guilt or even to justify continued custody.
"The case against the petitioners is primarily based on the disclosure statements made by the co-accused, which are itself inadmissible in the eyes of law."
The Court further noted that the two material witnesses, whose testimony was central to the prosecution’s narrative, had turned hostile. This significantly undermines the evidentiary value of the case. The Court also highlighted that seven co-accused, including those implicated through similar disclosure statements, had already been granted bail. Denial of bail to the petitioners under identical factual circumstances would violate the principle of equal treatment under law.
The Court acknowledged the gravity of the offence but reiterated that bail cannot be denied merely on the basis of the nature of the charge when the evidentiary foundation is weak and custody has become unduly prolonged. The petitioners had been in custody for over a year, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The Court held that the balance of convenience, fairness, and the presumption of innocence tilted decisively in favour of granting bail.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court allowed both petitions and ordered the release of Karan and Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Illaqa Magistrate, or Duty Magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that its observations should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case, and directed the trial court to decide the matter independently and expeditiously.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Disclosure Statements Alone Cannot Justify Denial of Bail
- Practitioners must challenge bail denials where the only link between the accused and the crime is a disclosure statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C.
- Such statements are not evidence and cannot substitute for eyewitness testimony or forensic corroboration.
- Courts must scrutinize whether the prosecution has any independent material to support custody.
Hostile Witnesses Undermine Prosecution’s Case for Custody
- When material witnesses turn hostile, the prosecution’s case weakens substantially.
- Continued detention without corroborative evidence becomes arbitrary and violates Article 21.
- Defence counsel should immediately move for bail upon proof of hostile testimony.
Equal Treatment of Co-Accused Is a Ground for Bail
- If co-accused with similar or stronger connections to the crime are granted bail, denial to others without distinction violates Article 14.
- Courts must justify differential treatment in bail orders with clear, objective reasoning.
- A pattern of bail grants to co-accused creates a strong presumption in favour of bail for others in similar circumstances.
