CRM-M-13783-2025 -1- 227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13783-2025 Date of Decision:13.05.2025 SANJEEV KUMAR ALIAS BHOLU …PETITIONER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.76 dated 14.07.2024, registered under Sections 105 of BNS & Sections 21, 27, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, Choti Kaur, Rajwinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur @ Bholi and Sona Rani have been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide orders Annexures P-4 to P-7. By referring to the post-mortem report Annexure P-3, learned counsel submits that apparently there were no marks of external injuries on the person of Satwinder Singh and he had died because of overdose of drugs. Further, the petitioner was only a friend of Satwinder Singh, since deceased and has been VIPIN KUMAR 2025.05.14 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-13783-2025 -2- falsely involved only on the basis of the suspicion. Even there was no corroborative evidence to show that the petitioner had caused the death of Satwinder Singh. Learned counsel next contends that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 15.07.2024 and is in custody for the last about 10 months. He further submits that no prosecution witness has been examined so far. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner alongwith other had caused the death of Satwinder Singh and the petitioner is the main accused and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that 09 persons were arrayed as accused in the present case and 07 of them have already been admitted to bail. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 10 months and no witness has been examined so far. Moreover, the prosecution is yet to lead evidence to connect the petitioner in the crime in the present case. Thus, the further custody of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. 13.05.2025 (N.S. SHEKHAWAT) vipin JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIPIN KUMAR 2025.05.14 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order