STATE OF PUNJAB v. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Rajesh Kapila and Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocates for the petitioner. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (439 Cr.P.C.) in FIR No.167 dated

07.06.2025, under Section 103, 61(2), 238 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (Erstwhile Section 302, 120-B, 201 of Indian Penal Code 1860), Police Station Civil Lines Batala, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.

The case of the prosecution is that the FIR was registered on the statement of Bevy with the allegations that his son Sahil Masih was murdered by forcibly administering a poisonous substance and was assaulted until he died. Thereafter his body was buried in the house of his fiancee, Cherry. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had participated in the commission of murder of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is a case of CRM-M-20362-2026 (O&M) 2 circumstantial evidence. Petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Kuljit Kaur. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 10 months and 23 days and is not involved in any other case. He, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Notice of motion. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 10 months and 23 days and out of the total cited 36 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime; he is in custody for the last 10 months and 23 days and is not involved in any other case; out of total cited 36 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far; trial is yet to commence and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. Moreover, ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

It is clarified that while on bail so granted through the instant order, if the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

08.07.2026 Janki (H.S.GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No