CRM-M-37875- IN THE H (108) BALDEV SINGH STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under Abohar, District F 2. The a got recorded by t residing in Village job in Abohar. On that her father Ma -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
INGH @ JANTI Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of nder Sections 302, 201 and 34 of trict Fazilka. The aforementioned FIR was registe d by the complainant Manjeet Kaur illage Bahawal Bassi, Abohar, where ar. On 09.10.2022, she received a call er Makhan Singh had gone somewhe JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-37875-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.03.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
for the petitioner Punjab preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.84 dated 11.11.2022 34 of IPC at Police Station Sadar registered on the basis of statement Kaur alleging that her family was whereas she was studying and doing a call from her mother Sukhjit Kaur ewhere on the intervening night of M) 2026 oner
dent
nder SS”) 2022 adar ment was oing Kaur ht of AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37875- 07/08.10.2022 and after having quarr coming back shor informed by her m had been lodged application at the father and thereaf brother Pardeep S them that they ha dumped his dead mother was havin was objected to by of her father. 3. After The co-accused S The complainant r basis of which t petitioner was al statements admitt victim was recove petitioner also disc body by digging a now stands conclu -2025 (O&M) 2 nd was missing since then. Since quarrels with her mother, the comp k shortly. On 17.10.2022, she came her mother that her father had not re dged by her to the Police. On 18.10 at the concerned police station regard thereafter she noticed changes in the deep Singh. She made enquiries and hey had killed her father on the nig dead body underneath the brick mad having illicit relations with some unk by her father and that is why her After registration of FIR, investigatio sed Sukhjit Kaur and Pardeep Singh inant recorded her supplementary state hich the petitioner was nominated as also arrested on the same day admitting their involvement in the c recovered at the instance of the petitio so disclosed the factum of killing the v ging a pit in the house of the victim a concluded. Since her father used to go like this complainant thought he would be came to her house, when she was not returned till then. No complaint 18.10.2022, her mother moved an regarding the disappearance of her in the behavior of her mother and es and came to know from both of he night of 07/08.10.2022 and had k made floor. By alleging that her e unknown person and the said act y her mother had committed murder stigation proceedings were initiated. Singh were arrested on 13.11.2022. ry statement on the same day, on the nated as additional accused. The e day. They suffered disclosure the crime. The dead body of the petitioner and the co-accused. The g the victim and concealing his dead ctim and burying him. Investigation this d be was laint d an f her and th of had t her d act urder ated. 022. n the The sure f the The dead ation AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37875- 4. It is a falsely implicated implicated subse to the murder of th call detail record during the investig spot at the time of considerable time examined. The co petitioner in the circumstantial evid would not serve a released on bail. 5. Per c report placed on re against the petiti committing simila victim was got re accused and is pri broad submissions 6. This C for the parties at co -2025 (O&M) 3 It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case. He was not nam ubsequently. He is in custody since l er of the victim. No recovery has been ecord and mobile tower location of nvestigation which showed that the pe ime of occurrence and also shows his e time to conclude since only 21 ou The complainant has since been exami n the commission of the subject o ial evidence to connect him with the cr erve any useful purpose. It is, thus, Per contra, learned State counsel w d on record, has vehemently argued th petitioner. There are chances o similar offences, if extended benefit o got recovered at the instance of the prima facie suggestive of complicit issions, it is stressed that the petition d This Court has heard the rival submis at considerable length. l for the petitioner that he has been ot named in the FIR and has been since long. There is no eye-witness as been effected at his instance. The on of his phone had been collected the petitioner was not present at the s his innocence. The trial will take 21 out of 34 witnesses have been examined and has not implicated the ject offences. There is no other the crime. His further incarceration thus, argued that he deserves to be nsel while relying upon the status ued that there are serious allegations ces of petitioner’s absconding or nefit of bail. The dead body of the of the petitioner as well as the co- plicity of the petitioner. With these ition does not deserve to be allowed. ubmissions made by learned counsel been been tness The ected t the take been d the other ation o be tatus tions g or f the - these unsel AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37875- 7. The murdered the vict alleged to have co victim and thereaf deposition has alongwith her mo was not present at nature. The trial is would be undue d law is that mere p take time by itself grounds for enlarg Reference in this Kumar Saxena V Yadav Vs. State of Amaramani Tripa proposition of law denied based on sp any exhaustive pa bail. The factors accusations entail are to be seen. Th or threatening th prosecution shoul -2025 (O&M) 4 The petitioner alongwith the co e victim on the intervening night of ave concealed his dead body by digg thereafter locking tiles on the same. T stated that the petitioner who er mother had committed the murder sent at that time. The allegations again trial is going at a proper pace and ther due delay in conclusion of the trial. ere prolonged period of custody or th itself or coupled with the period of i enlarging an accused on bail, when n this context can be had to the o na Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC (SC) te of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 2 Tripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 2 of law that grant of bail is a discret d on specific facts and circumstance o tive parameters set out for considerin ctors such as nature of accusations, entail a conviction and nature of evid en. That apart, reasonable apprehensio ing the material witnesses is also t should always be considered, and e co-accused is alleged to have ght of 07/08.10.2022 and is further y digging a pit in the house of the ame. The complainant in her sworn who is her maternal grand-father urder of the victim but her brother s against the petitioner are serious in nd there is nothing to show that there trial. The well settled proposition of y or the fact that the trial is likely to od of incarceration are not sufficient when the offence alleged is serious. the observations made in Parmod (SC), Chenna Boyanna Krishna C, 242 and State through CBI Vs. al) 280(SC). It is also well-settled discretionary relief to be granted or nce of each case and there cannot be sidering the application for grant of tions, severity of punishment if the f evidence in support of accusations hension of tampering with evidence also to be weighed. Frivolity of d, and it is only the element of have rther f the worn ather other us in there on of ly to cient ious. od na Vs. ttled d or ot be nt of f the tions ence y of t of AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-37875- genuineness that material witnesses a proper pace. As on the ground of p the allegations, the the attendant facts any comment on t the petition does n 8. Since any, is rendered in 16.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 5 has to be considered in the matte nesses have been examined which sho As such, the petitioner is not entit d of period spent by him in custody. ns, the quantum of sentence for which t facts and circumstances of the case nt on the merits thereof, this Court is does not deserve to be allowed. Accor Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
  
matter of grant of bail. 21 out of 34 ch shows that the trial is going on at t entitled to be released on bail only tody. Keeping in view the gravity of which the conviction may entail and e case but without meaning to make urt is of the considered opinion that Accordingly, the same is dismissed. dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE
Yes/No
of 34 on at only ty of l and ake that n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.