is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 06.04.2022, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, District Patiala, under Sections and Section 2. in custody for As per the allegations, h injury corresponding thereto also been recovered from him. The fatal injury has been attributed to one Harveer, who is in custody. Tejinder Singh Fauji and Yogeshwar Sharma alias Boni alias Jogeshw Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 06.04.2022, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, District Patiala, ections 302, 148, 149 IPC (Section 34 IPC deleted subsequently) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in custody for 3 years and about 9 months. the allegations, he is stated to have fired, however, there is no injury corresponding thereto as per the medical report been recovered from him. The fatal injury has been attributed to one Harveer, who is in custody. Similarly circumstanced co Tejinder Singh Fauji and Yogeshwar Sharma alias Boni alias Jogeshw Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.38 dated 06.04.2022, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, District Patiala, 148, 149 IPC (Section 34 IPC deleted subsequently) 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has been 3 years and about 9 months. He alleges false implication. is stated to have fired, however, there is no medical report and no weapon has been recovered from him. The fatal injury has been attributed to one umstanced co-accused, namely, Tejinder Singh Fauji and Yogeshwar Sharma alias Boni alias Jogeshwar Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.22 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Sharma have since been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 13.01.2026, after being the similarly custody. Besides them, co-accused, Pritpal Singh @ Preet and Bahadur Singh @ Lovedeep Singh stand released on bail, vide order dated 03.09.2025. Charges have been framed on 12.08.2022, the complainant as also the eye-witnesses stand examined; however, there are still 29 more to go. The petitioner is involved in 4 more cases. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. 3. Short reply on behalf of the respondent, as also custody certificate dated 21.01.2026, filed by the learned State counsel are taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 3 years, 8 months and 16 days. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having fired from the revolver of co-accused, Tejinder Singh, from whom it was thereafter recovered. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case and the co-accused having been released on bail. 5. Heard. 6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.22 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.” Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, “The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 3 years, 8 months and 16 days; co-accused are on bail; charges were framed on 12.08.2022, however 2 material witnesses, including the complainant, have been examined out of 29; the trial is likely to take a considerable time and further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed. 8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.22 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court. (viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.22 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.