CRM-M-46032-2024 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219 CRM-M-46032-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 16th May, 2025 Satnam Singh @ Vicky ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Neha Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- CRM-19232-2025 This application has been filed by the applicant for placing on record the copy of zimni order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 27.03.2025 and copy of cross examination of PW-2 (Mukhtiar Singh) as Annexures A-1 and A-2, respectively. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Annexures A-1 and A-2 are ordered to be taken on record. Main case The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 204 dated 18.09.2021 registered under Sections 302, 460, 201, 34, 380 and 411 of IPC Parveen Sharma 2025.05.19 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-46032-2024 2- at Police Station Passiana, District Patiala. 2. As per the allegations, on 18.09.2021, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that the victim Major Jasbir Singh Sandhu, who was engaged in business of sale purchase of properties and was residing alone in Sant Enclave Area, Patiala, had been killed by some unknown person on the previous night and his dead body had been taken away from his house, a police party rushed towards the house of the victim. Ruqa was sent and the aforementioned FIR was registered. On the same day, the complainant Amandeep Kaur @ Aman met the Investigating Officer and recorded her statement to the effect that the victim had secured contract for providing security services to Thapar University, Patiala and had got her engaged on a contractual job. She used to go to his house for doing domestic work. She disclosed that one Priya used to reside in the house of Jasbir Singh, along with her daughter Simran and the victim used to bear her educational expenses. Simran had left his house sometime back and had started residing in a paying guest accommodation in Mohali. She recorded that about 20 days back, on asking of the victim, she along with him and her son Gurpreet Singh had gone to the paying guest accommodation of Simran to giver her grocery etc. At that time, Simran had introduced them with petitioner Satnam Singh @ Vicky and co-accused Kamal Kaur and Jasmandeep Kaur. 3. The complainant further disclosed that on the night of 17.09.2021, the victim had called her at about 9:00 PM and told her that Simran along with the petitioner and the co-accused had come to his house and they will go after having supper. She alleged that in the next morning, Parveen Sharma 2025.05.19 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-46032-2024 3- she had made a call to the victim, who did not pick up her phone and then she came to know that he had been murdered and his dead body was taken somewhere. While alleging that Simran along with the petitioner and the co- accused, who were her friends had killed the victim, out of greed of property, she prayed for taking action. 4. On statement of complainant, the petitioner and co-accused were nominated as an accused. They were arrested on 19.09.2021. A WagonR car belonging to the victim was recovered from them. The mobile phone of the victim was recovered at the instance of the petitioner, whereas, his wallet, documents of identity, ATM cards and military car etc. were recovered from the custody of accused Simran Kaur. The petitioner suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and gave details of the manner in which the victim had been killed, as per which, he along with the co-accused had gone to the house of the victim, had meals with him and then had assaulted him. The victim had started making noise and then they had strangulated him with a muffler, as a result of which, he had died. His dead body was lifted in the car belonging to the victim himself and was thrown in a canal. 5. During investigation, the dead body of the victim was recovered from a canal near village Thohal, District Kurukshetra on 21.09.2021. The post mortem examination of the same was conducted and as per the opinion of the doctors, the combined effect of head injury described and strangulation, were the cause of death. Investigation has since been completed. 6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has Parveen Sharma 2025.05.19 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-46032-2024 4- been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The material witness Amandeep Kaur has since been died. There is no other circumstance to connect him with the crime. PW-2 Mukhtiar Singh, Security Guard of the area, where the victim had been residing, has not implicated the petitioner in the commission of subject offences. Trial will take considerable time. He is in custody since long. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in one more case cannot be considered a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. Accordingly, it is urged that he deserves to be released on bail. 7. Status report has been filed by respondent-State. It is argued by learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, that the petitioner by hatching a conspiracy with the co-accused had gone to the house of the victim with a plan to abduct him and to get his property transferred in their name and had killed him by strangulating and assaulting him in his house itself and thereafter they had thrown the dead body in the canal to cause disappearance of evidence of offence. He along with the co-accused had also committed theft of belongings of the victim and the car stolen by him and the co- accused was recovered at his instance. It is argued that keeping in view the grave nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully. 9. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have gone to the house of the complainant on the fateful night, assaulted him Parveen Sharma 2025.05.19 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-46032-2024 5- with an intention to abduct him and when the victim raised alarm, he alongwith the co-accused is alleged to have killed him. No doubt, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and one material witness namely Amandeep Kaur @ Aman, is stated to have expired, but in view the allegations levelled against the petitioner, there are other circumstances connecting him with the offence. The Security Guard of the vicinity might have not recognized the petitioner but only due to that reason, no inference can be drawn as to the innocence of the petitioner at this stage. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against him, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Hence, the same is dismissed. 10. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 16th May, 2025 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No Parveen Sharma 2025.05.19 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document