Jalandhar (28/10/2025):It is to inform all our readers that Ritchie K.P., the only son of Mohinder Singh K.P. — former Member of Parliament from Jalandhar and former Minister in the Punjab Government — died in a road accident on the night of 13 September 2025 in Model Town, Jalandhar. Following this tragic incident, the Police Station No. 6 of Jalandhar registered a case, naming Gursharan Singh, a cloth merchant from Jalandhar, as the main accused for rash driving.
Apart from Gursharan Singh, another person named Vishu Kapoor was also booked in connection with the accident. Additionally, three others — Jasmeet Singh, Gurpreet Singh alias Tinku, and Taranjeet Singh alias Rinku — were charged with harboring the main accused, Gursharan Singh.
As per the latest updates, the anticipatory bail plea of the main accused, Gursharan Singh, has been rejected — first by a Jalandhar court and later by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Meanwhile, Vishu Kapoor’s anticipatory bail has been rejected twice by the Jalandhar court. Among those accused of harboring, Gurpreet Singh (Tinku) and Taranjeet Singh (Rinku) have been granted bail, while Jasmeet Singh’s anticipatory bail has reportedly been rejected by the Jalandhar court.
Now, we would like to discuss a few key questions that arose during these bail hearings:
1. Political Pressure Claim: Gursharan Singh, in his bail plea before the Jalandhar court, claimed that the case against him was filed under political pressure. However, this raises a question — how could political pressure be a factor when Mohinder Singh K.P. is currently associated with the Akali Dal (Badal), a party that has been out of power in Punjab for a long time? Earlier, when Mohinder Singh K.P. was an MP and a minister in the Punjab government, he was part of the Congress, which today holds neither power in Punjab nor at the Centre. So, it seems quite implausible that Mohinder Singh K.P. could have exerted any political pressure against Gursharan Singh.
2. Vishu Kapoor’s Bail Argument: The co-accused, Vishu Kapoor, sought anticipatory bail from the Jalandhar court on the grounds that he himself was a victim, having sustained serious injuries in the same accident and was admitted to NHS Hospital in Jalandhar. However, even if he was injured, how does that make him innocent? Such reasoning seems unconvincing.
3. Second Bail Application by Vishu Kapoor: After his first bail plea was rejected, Vishu Kapoor filed another anticipatory bail petition, claiming he had been hospitalized since 13 September 2025 due to his medical condition. This raises another question — if he had indeed been hospitalized since the night of the accident, why didn’t he mention ground of his medical condition in his first bail application? Why did he raise this issue only in the second plea after the first was dismissed? This inconsistency suggests a possible misuse of legal process and an attempt to mislead the court to obtain bail.
4. Harboring Accused — Jasmeet Singh’s Argument: Jasmeet Singh argued that since the other two accused in the harboring case (Gurpreet Singh and Taranjeet Singh) had been granted bail, he too should receive the same benefit. He further claimed he neither drove the vehicle nor was present at the accident site. But the question arises — does providing shelter or assistance to an accused absolve one of guilt? Certainly not. Therefore, why should Jasmeet Singh be entitled to anticipatory bail?
5. Representation in High Court: It is worth noting that when the main accused, Gursharan Singh, approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for anticipatory bail, his case was represented by Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai — who until recently served as the Chief Advocate for the Punjab government under the Bhagwant Mann in proceedings of punjab and haryana high court . During the hearing, Vinod Ghai argued that the car driven by Vishu Kapoor (ahead of Gursharan Singh’s car) had actually collided with Ritchie K.P.’s vehicle, and Gursharan Singh’s car struck afterward unknowingly.
However, the court observed that Gursharan Singh was driving at a very high speed in a densely populated area of the city, and such reckless driving could easily have endangered lives. On that basis, the High Court also rejected Gursharan Singh’s anticipatory bail plea.
Caption: Photo of Ritchie K.P.
Tags
Legal