Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 November, 2025
1
CRM-
CRM-M-63572-
63572-2025
232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-63572-
63572-2025
Jagjit Singh
....Petitioner
Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of decision: November 18
18, 2025
Date of Uploading: November 18, 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Bansi Lal Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ''BNSS') for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.
No.40 dated 11.04.2025,,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 304, 115(2), 3(5),
238 & 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'), at Police
Station Giddarbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2. The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner is that the
petitioner in connivance with other co-accused
accused gave beatings to deceased
after giving him over dose of drugs and also snatched his mobile phone. The
deceased could not survive the over dose of the drugs.
1 of 4
CRM-
CRM-M-63572-
63572-2025
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner
is in custody since 12.04.2025. Learned counsel has iterated that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned
counsel has further argued that prime private prosecution witnesses, namely,
PW1-Ved Parkash, PW2-Mahinder & PW3-Dharampal have been examined
and they have turned hostile, thus, trial is not likely to be culminated into
conviction. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature,
and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.
Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated
17.11.2025, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through
the available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 12.04.2025, whereinafter, the
investigation was carried out and the challan has been presented on
10.06.2025. Total 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which,
only 05 have been examined till date. Culmination of trial, but ofcourse, will
take its own time. The rival contentions raised at Bar; including weightage
required to be attached to the testimony of hostile witnesses; shall be
ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it
appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it
may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to
indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of
justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
2 of 4
CRM-
CRM-M-63572-
63572-2025
6.1. As per custody certificate dated 17.11.2025 filed by learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 07 months & 02 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the
petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum
cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular
bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant
of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the
facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a
Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of
Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this
Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of
Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3)
RCR (Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as undertrial is
not warranted in the factual milieu of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in
addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty
Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral
or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
3 of 4
CRM-
CRM-M-63572-
63572-2025
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport(s), if any, with
the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number(s) to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station
and shall not change his cell-phone number(s) without
prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the
trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
November 18,
18, 2025
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
