Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Gurmeet Singh Gill

Court dismisses revision petition challenging charges in high-profile criminal case linked to mob violence

In a significant legal development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by Gurmeet Singh Gill, challenging the order of framing charges against him in a criminal case stemming from the violent ransacking of a police station in Ajnala, Punjab. The case, which has drawn considerable attention, involves serious charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act.

Presiding over the matter, Justice Surya Partap Singh ruled on December 15, 2025, that there was sufficient prima facie evidence warranting the framing of charges against the petitioner, Gurmeet Singh Gill, alias Gurmeet Singh Bukkanwal. The court's decision upholds the trial court's previous order dated July 29, 2025, which directed the framing of charges based on the prosecution's presented evidence.

The charges against Gill include offences under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 333 (causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 506 (criminal intimidation), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 427 (mischief causing damage), 148 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner argued that he was not present at the scene during the incident on February 23, 2023, asserting that he was unlawfully detained by Moga Police at a different location. This claim was supported by admissions during proceedings under the National Security Act (NSA), where Gill was held for a year. However, the court found that statements from eyewitnesses, specifically police officials SI Satnam Singh and MHC Shubegh Singh, placed Gill at the scene of the crime, providing sufficient grounds to proceed with the charges.

Gill's counsel contended that the investigation was politically motivated, alleging procedural lapses and arguing that the trial court had ignored crucial admissions made by the public prosecutor regarding Gill's absence from the crime scene. Despite these claims, the High Court determined that the evidentiary threshold for framing charges had been met, emphasizing that at this stage, the prosecution only needs to establish a prima facie case, not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The State, represented by senior legal officials, maintained that Gill was indeed present during the violent incident, highlighting the gravity of the charges linked to threats against the state's authority and public servants. The court's decision reflects the principle that during the charge framing stage, judicial scrutiny focuses on whether there is enough material to suggest the accused's involvement, rather than evaluating the full probative value of the evidence.

With the dismissal of the revision petition, the case will now proceed to trial, where the evidence against Gill will be examined in detail. This ruling reinforces the legal framework guiding the initial stages of criminal prosecution in India, underscoring the balance between procedural justice and the necessity of addressing severe allegations.

Bottom Line:

At the stage of framing of charges, only a prima facie case is required to be established by the prosecution, and the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into.

Statutory provision(s): Sections 307, 353, 186, 332, 333, 506(ii), 120-B, 427, 148, 149, 201 of IPC, Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, Section 227 Cr.P.C., Section 161 Cr.P.C., National Security Act, 1980

Gurmeet Singh Gill alias Gurmeet Singh Bukkanwal v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2822309