CRM-M-6237-202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jaspal Singh @ Jassa State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Aditya Anand Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. Mr. Jagjeet Singh, Advocate for the complainant. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present is the second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed for the release of the petitioner on regular bail in FIR No. 36 dated 27.02.2023, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code 2. FIR No. 36 dated 27.02.2023 was registered on the basis of a statement made by complainant Gurpreet Kaur, wife of deceased Harpreet Singh @ Happy, who alleged that her husband, a mason by pro bad company and had started consuming drugs. It was alleged that on 08.02.2023 at about 7:00 PM, the deceased left the house and did not return. At about 9:00 PM, the complainant went to the house of co husband used to frequently visit his house to procure drugs, however, he was not found there. Thereafter, Jaspal Singh @ Jassa along with his son Gurjot Singh @ Goti came to the complainant’s house and assured her that they would search for Harpreet Singh and bring him back. 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Jaspal Singh @ Jassa HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. Mr. Jagjeet Singh, Advocate for the complainant. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present is the second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed for the release of the petitioner on regular bail in FIR No. 36 dated 27.02.2023, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural. FIR No. 36 dated 27.02.2023 was registered on the basis of a statement made by complainant Gurpreet Kaur, wife of deceased Harpreet Singh @ Happy, who alleged that her husband, a mason by pro bad company and had started consuming drugs. It was alleged that on 08.02.2023 at about 7:00 PM, the deceased left the house and did not return. At about 9:00 PM, the complainant went to the house of co-accused Jaspal Singh @ Jassa husband used to frequently visit his house to procure drugs, however, he was not found there. Thereafter, Jaspal Singh @ Jassa along with his son Gurjot Singh @ Goti came to the complainant’s house and assured her that they would search for et Singh and bring him back. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6237-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. Mr. Jagjeet Singh, Advocate for the complainant. The present is the second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed for the release of the petitioner on regular bail in FIR No. 36 dated 27.02.2023, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of , 1860, at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural. FIR No. 36 dated 27.02.2023 was registered on the basis of a statement made by complainant Gurpreet Kaur, wife of deceased Harpreet Singh @ Happy, who alleged that her husband, a mason by profession, had fallen into bad company and had started consuming drugs. It was alleged that on 08.02.2023 at about 7:00 PM, the deceased left the house and did not return. At about 9:00 accused Jaspal Singh @ Jassa, as her husband used to frequently visit his house to procure drugs, however, he was not found there. Thereafter, Jaspal Singh @ Jassa along with his son Gurjot Singh @ Goti came to the complainant’s house and assured her that they would search for The present is the second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed for the release of the petitioner on regular bail in FIR No. 36 dated 27.02.2023, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of FIR No. 36 dated 27.02.2023 was registered on the basis of a statement made by complainant Gurpreet Kaur, wife of deceased Harpreet Singh fession, had fallen into bad company and had started consuming drugs. It was alleged that on 08.02.2023 at about 7:00 PM, the deceased left the house and did not return. At about 9:00 , as her husband used to frequently visit his house to procure drugs, however, he was not found there. Thereafter, Jaspal Singh @ Jassa along with his son Gurjot Singh @ Goti came to the complainant’s house and assured her that they would search for TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.09 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6237-202 3. It was further alleged that after some time, Jaspal Singh @ Jassa and Gurjot Singh @ Goti again came to the complainant’s house and informed her that her husband Harpreet Singh @ Happy had died after injecting drugs. Subseq the dead body of Harpreet Singh was found lying in the fields near a mobile tower, and Jaspal Singh @ Jassa allegedly helped the complainant and her mother Manjit Kaur in bringing the dead body to the house, after which the deceased was cremated the next morning. 4. Later on, after viewing CCTV footage installed at the house of Avtar Singh @ Sonu, the complainant alleged that co (present petitioner) Harpreet Singh on an Activa sc further alleged that Gurjot Singh @ Goti and his mother Kulwinder Kaur @ Kinder were present nearby and were keeping a watch on the road to observe the movement of people. The complainant further alleged that namely Jaspal Singh @ Jassa, Bhupinder Singh @ Binda, Gurjot Singh @ Goti and Kulwinder Kaur @ Kinder, had acted in connivance with each other, called her husband to their house, made him consume drugs, which resulted in his death thereafter disposed of the dead body in the fields in order to destroy the evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the role attributed to the petitioner in the instant FIR is extremely limited and confined only to the allegation that he had accompanied co Sing @ Bhinda allegation is sought to be supported solely on the basis of CCTV footage that is legally inadmissible for want of a 2026 (O&M) It was further alleged that after some time, Jaspal Singh @ Jassa and Gurjot Singh @ Goti again came to the complainant’s house and informed her that her husband Harpreet Singh @ Happy had died after injecting drugs. Subseq the dead body of Harpreet Singh was found lying in the fields near a mobile tower, and Jaspal Singh @ Jassa allegedly helped the complainant and her mother Manjit Kaur in bringing the dead body to the house, after which the deceased was ated the next morning. Later on, after viewing CCTV footage installed at the house of Avtar Singh @ Sonu, the complainant alleged that co present petitioner) and Bhupinder Singh @ Binda Harpreet Singh on an Activa scooter and thrown the same in the fields. It was further alleged that Gurjot Singh @ Goti and his mother Kulwinder Kaur @ were present nearby and were keeping a watch on the road to observe the movement of people. The complainant further alleged that namely Jaspal Singh @ Jassa, Bhupinder Singh @ Binda, Gurjot Singh @ Goti and Kulwinder Kaur @ Kinder, had acted in connivance with each other, called her husband to their house, made him consume drugs, which resulted in his death thereafter disposed of the dead body in the fields in order to destroy the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the role attributed to the petitioner in the instant FIR is extremely limited and confined only to the n that he had accompanied co-accused Sing @ Bhinda on an Activa scooter while disposing of the dead body, which allegation is sought to be supported solely on the basis of CCTV footage that is legally inadmissible for want of a certificate under Section 65 -2- It was further alleged that after some time, Jaspal Singh @ Jassa and Gurjot Singh @ Goti again came to the complainant’s house and informed her that her husband Harpreet Singh @ Happy had died after injecting drugs. Subsequently, the dead body of Harpreet Singh was found lying in the fields near a mobile tower, and Jaspal Singh @ Jassa allegedly helped the complainant and her mother-in-law Manjit Kaur in bringing the dead body to the house, after which the deceased was Later on, after viewing CCTV footage installed at the house of Avtar Singh @ Sonu, the complainant alleged that co-accused Jaspal Singh @ Jassa and Bhupinder Singh @ Binda had carried the dead body of ooter and thrown the same in the fields. It was further alleged that Gurjot Singh @ Goti and his mother Kulwinder Kaur @ were present nearby and were keeping a watch on the road to observe the movement of people. The complainant further alleged that all the accused persons, namely Jaspal Singh @ Jassa, Bhupinder Singh @ Binda, Gurjot Singh @ Goti and Kulwinder Kaur @ Kinder, had acted in connivance with each other, called her husband to their house, made him consume drugs, which resulted in his death, and thereafter disposed of the dead body in the fields in order to destroy the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the role attributed to the petitioner in the instant FIR is extremely limited and confined only to the accused Harpinder Singh @ Bhupinder on an Activa scooter while disposing of the dead body, which allegation is sought to be supported solely on the basis of CCTV footage that is certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian It was further alleged that after some time, Jaspal Singh @ Jassa and Gurjot Singh @ Goti again came to the complainant’s house and informed her that uently, the dead body of Harpreet Singh was found lying in the fields near a mobile tower, law Manjit Kaur in bringing the dead body to the house, after which the deceased was Later on, after viewing CCTV footage installed at the house of Avtar accused Jaspal Singh @ Jassa had carried the dead body of ooter and thrown the same in the fields. It was further alleged that Gurjot Singh @ Goti and his mother Kulwinder Kaur @ were present nearby and were keeping a watch on the road to observe the all the accused persons, namely Jaspal Singh @ Jassa, Bhupinder Singh @ Binda, Gurjot Singh @ Goti and Kulwinder Kaur @ Kinder, had acted in connivance with each other, called her , and thereafter disposed of the dead body in the fields in order to destroy the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the role attributed to the petitioner in the instant FIR is extremely limited and confined only to the Harpinder Singh @ Bhupinder on an Activa scooter while disposing of the dead body, which allegation is sought to be supported solely on the basis of CCTV footage that is B of the Indian TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.09 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6237-202 Evidence Act, 1872. It is further contended that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay of about 19 days in lodging the FIR, which renders the prosecution version doubtful and prone to embellishment. The p based entirely on circumstantial evidence, there being no eye no material to suggest that the petitioner had any role in causing the death of the deceased or in administering drugs to him. It is also contended that no pos examination was conducted, as the deceased was cremated, and therefore the cause of death itself remains unknown, which further weakens the prosecution case. It is submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner was present at the place where the death allegedly occurred, nor is there any recovery or disclosure effected from him during investigation. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the challan stands presented, charges have already been framed and the trial is at a nascent stage with none of the prosecution witnesses having been examined despite repeated adjournments. It is also argued that the peti technical grounds or at a preliminary stage and that more than a year has elapsed since the last order of this Hon’ble Court, constituting a material change in circumstances. On the basis of prolo overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner seeks the concession of regular bail. 6. Learned State counsel petitioner, today in Court, which is take for the complainant 2026 (O&M) Evidence Act, 1872. It is further contended that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay of about 19 days in lodging the FIR, which renders the prosecution version doubtful and prone to embellishment. The p based entirely on circumstantial evidence, there being no eye no material to suggest that the petitioner had any role in causing the death of the deceased or in administering drugs to him. It is also contended that no pos examination was conducted, as the deceased was cremated, and therefore the cause of death itself remains unknown, which further weakens the prosecution case. It is submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner was present at the place where the death allegedly occurred, nor is there any recovery or disclosure effected from him during investigation. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 27.02.2023, his interrogation did not lead to any er Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the challan stands presented, charges have already been framed and the trial is at a nascent stage with none of the prosecution witnesses having been examined despite repeated adjournments. It is also argued that the petitioner’s earlier bail applications were dismissed either on technical grounds or at a preliminary stage and that more than a year has elapsed since the last order of this Hon’ble Court, constituting a material change in circumstances. On the basis of prolonged incarceration, slow progress of trial and overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner seeks the concession of Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, today in Court, which is taken on record. He along with for the complainant has opposed the prayer for regular bail by submitting that the -3- Evidence Act, 1872. It is further contended that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay of about 19 days in lodging the FIR, which renders the prosecution version doubtful and prone to embellishment. The present case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, there being no eye-witness account and no material to suggest that the petitioner had any role in causing the death of the deceased or in administering drugs to him. It is also contended that no post-mortem examination was conducted, as the deceased was cremated, and therefore the cause of death itself remains unknown, which further weakens the prosecution case. It is submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner was present at the place where the death allegedly occurred, nor is there any recovery or disclosure effected from him during investigation. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner , his interrogation did not lead to any er Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the challan stands presented, charges have already been framed and the trial is at a nascent stage with none of the prosecution witnesses having been examined despite repeated adjournments. It tioner’s earlier bail applications were dismissed either on technical grounds or at a preliminary stage and that more than a year has elapsed since the last order of this Hon’ble Court, constituting a material change in nged incarceration, slow progress of trial and overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner seeks the concession of has produced the custody certificate of the n on record. He along with learned counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail by submitting that the Evidence Act, 1872. It is further contended that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay of about 19 days in lodging the FIR, which renders the resent case is witness account and no material to suggest that the petitioner had any role in causing the death of the mortem examination was conducted, as the deceased was cremated, and therefore the cause of death itself remains unknown, which further weakens the prosecution case. It is submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner was present at the place where the death allegedly occurred, nor is there any recovery or disclosure effected from him during investigation. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner , his interrogation did not lead to any er Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the challan stands presented, charges have already been framed and the trial is at a nascent stage with none of the prosecution witnesses having been examined despite repeated adjournments. It tioner’s earlier bail applications were dismissed either on technical grounds or at a preliminary stage and that more than a year has elapsed since the last order of this Hon’ble Court, constituting a material change in nged incarceration, slow progress of trial and overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner seeks the concession of has produced the custody certificate of the learned counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail by submitting that the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.09 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6237-202 allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is contended that during investigation, last seen evidence of witnesses, including Amarjeet Singh, who had seen the petitioner along with co accused Jaspal Singh @ Jassa carrying a person on an Activa scooter near the place where the dead body was later found. The State furth judicial confession allegedly made by the accused persons before Balkar Singh, former Sarpanch, wherein the role of the petitioner has been specifically attributed in administering drugs to the deceased and disposing of the dead bo argued that the investigation has revealed a concerted plan and common intention of all the accused, that charges under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC have already been framed, and that considering the seriousness of the offen there is an apprehension that the petitioner may influence witnesses or misuse the concession of bail if released. Accordingly, the State dismissal of the present petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and a record, this Court finds merit in the present petition for the following reasons: 8. Firstly, the most crucial piece of evidence, is conspicuously absent in the present case. It is an admitted position that no mortem examination was conducted as the deceased was cremated. In the absence of medical evidence, it cannot be conclusively held at this stage that the deceased died on account of the alleged injection of drugs administered by the accused persons. 9. Secondly, there is an unexplained delay of about 19 days in lodging the FIR, which prima facie casts a doubt on the prosecution version. 2026 (O&M) allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is contended that during investigation, last seen evidence has surfaced in the form of statements of witnesses, including Amarjeet Singh, who had seen the petitioner along with co accused Jaspal Singh @ Jassa carrying a person on an Activa scooter near the place where the dead body was later found. The State furth judicial confession allegedly made by the accused persons before Balkar Singh, former Sarpanch, wherein the role of the petitioner has been specifically attributed in administering drugs to the deceased and disposing of the dead bo argued that the investigation has revealed a concerted plan and common intention of all the accused, that charges under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC have already been framed, and that considering the seriousness of the offen there is an apprehension that the petitioner may influence witnesses or misuse the concession of bail if released. Accordingly, the State dismissal of the present petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and a record, this Court finds merit in the present petition for the following reasons: Firstly, the most crucial piece of evidence, is conspicuously absent in the present case. It is an admitted position that no mortem examination was conducted as the deceased was cremated. In the absence of medical evidence, it cannot be conclusively held at this stage that the deceased died on account of the alleged injection of drugs administered by the accused Secondly, there is an unexplained delay of about 19 days in lodging the FIR, which prima facie casts a doubt on the prosecution version. -4- allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is contended has surfaced in the form of statements of witnesses, including Amarjeet Singh, who had seen the petitioner along with co accused Jaspal Singh @ Jassa carrying a person on an Activa scooter near the place where the dead body was later found. The State further relies upon the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused persons before Balkar Singh, former Sarpanch, wherein the role of the petitioner has been specifically attributed in administering drugs to the deceased and disposing of the dead body. It is also argued that the investigation has revealed a concerted plan and common intention of all the accused, that charges under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC have already been framed, and that considering the seriousness of the offen there is an apprehension that the petitioner may influence witnesses or misuse the concession of bail if released. Accordingly, the State and complainant pray for Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court finds merit in the present petition for the following reasons: Firstly, the most crucial piece of evidence, i.e the post-mortem report, is conspicuously absent in the present case. It is an admitted position that no post mortem examination was conducted as the deceased was cremated. In the absence of medical evidence, it cannot be conclusively held at this stage that the deceased died on account of the alleged injection of drugs administered by the accused Secondly, there is an unexplained delay of about 19 days in lodging the FIR, which prima facie casts a doubt on the prosecution version. allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is contended has surfaced in the form of statements of witnesses, including Amarjeet Singh, who had seen the petitioner along with co- accused Jaspal Singh @ Jassa carrying a person on an Activa scooter near the place er relies upon the extra- judicial confession allegedly made by the accused persons before Balkar Singh, former Sarpanch, wherein the role of the petitioner has been specifically attributed dy. It is also argued that the investigation has revealed a concerted plan and common intention of all the accused, that charges under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC have already been framed, and that considering the seriousness of the offence, there is an apprehension that the petitioner may influence witnesses or misuse the pray for fter perusing the mortem report, post- mortem examination was conducted as the deceased was cremated. In the absence of medical evidence, it cannot be conclusively held at this stage that the deceased died on account of the alleged injection of drugs administered by the accused Secondly, there is an unexplained delay of about 19 days in lodging TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.09 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6237-202 10. Thirdly, the case of the prosecution is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Reliance has been placed on showing the petitioner along with co @ Bhinda carrying the dead body of the deceased on an Activa scooter near the mobile tower where the body was later found. 11. Further rel confession made before the village Sarpanch, wherein the accused persons are stated to have confessed that a high dose of drugs was injected into the deceased. However, it is well settled that extra evidence and requires strict scrutiny at the stage of trial. 12. So far as has a limited evidentiary value and even therein, the petitioner has attributed the act of administering the drug to co @ Bhinda, and not to himself. The only allegation qua the petitioner, therefore, relates to the disposal of the dead body, which would, at best, attract the offence under Section 201 13. It is also not in dispute that the other co Kaur and the juvenile, have already been released on bail. 14. It is further noted that charges were framed in the year 2023, and till date not a single prosecution witnes likely to take considerable time to conclude. 15. Keeping in view the absence of medical evidence, the delayed FIR, the nature of evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the limited role attributed to the petitioner, the slow progress of trial 2026 (O&M) Thirdly, the case of the prosecution is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Reliance has been placed on the alleged CCTV footage purportedly showing the petitioner along with co-accused Harpinder Singh @ Bhupinder Singh carrying the dead body of the deceased on an Activa scooter near the mobile tower where the body was later found. Further reliance has been placed on the alleged extra confession made before the village Sarpanch, wherein the accused persons are stated to have confessed that a high dose of drugs was injected into the deceased. However, it is well settled that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and requires strict scrutiny at the stage of trial. So far as recovery of a needle and a syringe has a limited evidentiary value and even therein, the petitioner has attributed the of administering the drug to co-accused Harpinder Singh @ Bhupinder Singh , and not to himself. The only allegation qua the petitioner, therefore, relates to the disposal of the dead body, which would, at best, attract the offence under Section 201 IPC. It is also not in dispute that the other co Kaur and the juvenile, have already been released on bail. It is further noted that charges were framed in the year 2023, and till date not a single prosecution witness has been examined, indicating that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Keeping in view the absence of medical evidence, the delayed FIR, the nature of evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the limited role attributed to e petitioner, the slow progress of trial and the custody period undergone by the -5- Thirdly, the case of the prosecution is based entirely on circumstantial the alleged CCTV footage purportedly Harpinder Singh @ Bhupinder Singh carrying the dead body of the deceased on an Activa scooter near the iance has been placed on the alleged extra-judicial confession made before the village Sarpanch, wherein the accused persons are stated to have confessed that a high dose of drugs was injected into the deceased. ial confession is a weak piece of evidence and requires strict scrutiny at the stage of trial. recovery of a needle and a syringe is concerned, the same has a limited evidentiary value and even therein, the petitioner has attributed the Harpinder Singh @ Bhupinder Singh , and not to himself. The only allegation qua the petitioner, therefore, relates to the disposal of the dead body, which would, at best, attract the offence It is also not in dispute that the other co-accused, including Kulwinder Kaur and the juvenile, have already been released on bail. It is further noted that charges were framed in the year 2023, and till s has been examined, indicating that the trial is Keeping in view the absence of medical evidence, the delayed FIR, the nature of evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the limited role attributed to and the custody period undergone by the Thirdly, the case of the prosecution is based entirely on circumstantial the alleged CCTV footage purportedly Harpinder Singh @ Bhupinder Singh carrying the dead body of the deceased on an Activa scooter near the judicial confession made before the village Sarpanch, wherein the accused persons are stated to have confessed that a high dose of drugs was injected into the deceased. ial confession is a weak piece of is concerned, the same has a limited evidentiary value and even therein, the petitioner has attributed the Harpinder Singh @ Bhupinder Singh , and not to himself. The only allegation qua the petitioner, therefore, relates to the disposal of the dead body, which would, at best, attract the offence accused, including Kulwinder It is further noted that charges were framed in the year 2023, and till s has been examined, indicating that the trial is Keeping in view the absence of medical evidence, the delayed FIR, the nature of evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the limited role attributed to and the custody period undergone by the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.09 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6237-202 petitioner i.e. 02 years, 10 months and 30 days opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. 16. Accordingly, t ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 17. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. February 09, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2026 (O&M) petitioner i.e. 02 years, 10 months and 30 days opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -6- petitioner i.e. 02 years, 10 months and 30 days, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. he present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No , this Court is of the considered he present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.09 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document