CRM-M-42474-2025 1 233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-42474-2025 Date of decision : 11.08.2025 Neeraj @ Lakhu .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Damanjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, A.A.G., Punjab. RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.236 dated 19.09.2023, registered under Sections 302 & 34 of IPC at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana, Punjab. 2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Pooja Devi, who is none other than the wife of deceased. It was alleged that her husband, namely, Pardeep Kumar, used to work in the Railway Station. He told her that Rajat used to threaten him to kill and hence, her husband used to remain disturbed. On 17.09.2023, when her husband had gone for his duty, she was informed at about 12.30 P.M. by the employees from the Railway staff that Pardeep Kumar was badly injured and lying in the engine shed near Government School and thus was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. She along with the family members reached the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana and found her husband in a bad condition. Then he POOJA SHARMA 2025.08.11 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42474-2025 2 was referred to SPS Hospital, Ludhiana and died during the treatment. The request was made to take the legal action against Rajat and unknown accomplices. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During investigation, the complicity of the petitioner surfaced on the basis of extra judicial confession made before one Aman Kumar. Thus, the petitioner was arrested on 20.09.2023. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana praying for the grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana declined the petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 13.09.2024. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays for the grant of bail on the basis of parity with that of the co-accused. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in CRM-M-44178-2024 dated 15.07.2025 whereby co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Rajat Singh, has been granted the concession of bail. He has submitted that case of the petitioner is at par with the co-accused, who has been granted bail by this Court. He submits that on the basis of the parity, petitioner deserves to be granted bail as case of the petitioner is similar to that of the co-accused, who has already been granted bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that during investigation, complicity of the petitioner was surfaced. He, on instructions, submits that out of total 20 prosecution witnesses, only 04 witnesses have been examined till date. He endorsed the fact that the case of petitioner is at par with co-accused, namely, Rajat Singh, who has already been granted bail POOJA SHARMA 2025.08.11 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42474-2025 3 by this Court. He has placed on record custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court and the same is taken on record. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is noticed that name of the petitioner surfaced in the present case on the basis of extra judicial confession made before one Aman Kumar. The petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest. Admittedly, co- accused of the petitioner, namely, Rajat Singh, has already been granted bail by the Court vide order dated 15.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-44178- 2024. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has completed the incarceration of 01 year, 10 months and 14 days as on 10.08 2025. It further reflects that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 7. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. 8. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Thus, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court/Duty Magistrate. ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) 11.08.2025 JUDGE ps-I Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2025.08.11 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document