CRM-M-45465-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Serial No. 203 CRM-M- 45465-2025 Decided on:10.09.2025 Gurjeet Singh @ Gurjit Singh . . . Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Baljit Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL) This second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.24 dated 17.05.2020, registered under Sections 302, 341, 506, 148, 149, 449 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 212, 216, 201 IPC and Sections 29, 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 added later on) at Police Station Arif Ke, District Ferozepur. 2. It is contended that as per allegations in the FIR, the deceased Kulwinder Singh was given fatal gun shot injury by Jagga Singh on lalkara by Sukhwinder Singh alias Shinda, who were accompanied by Manga Singh. The petitioner has not been attributed any overt act in the incident, and has been nominated in the case only on the basis of statements of witnesses Jagtar Singh and Niranjan Singh. The petitioner has been in custody since 18.06.2020 and the trial is not progressing. After the arrest of three main accused named in the FIR, de novo trial has commenced vide order dated 13.11.2024. Material witnesses have already been examined, and keeping in view the long custody MEHAK HURIA 2025.09.10 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-45465-2025 2 the petitioner has undergone, he is entitled to be released on bail. It is also contended that co-accused Karam Singh alias Nimma and Gurjit Singh with similar allegations have already been granted regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 29.07.2025. 3. Learned State counsel does not dispute the facts aforementioned. He, however, contends that offences are heinous. Regarding stage of trial he submits out of forty nine witnesses, five have given up, ten have been examined and thirty four are still to be examined. The complainant and another material witness Satnam Singh, have been examined. The petitioner is in custody since 18.06.2020. 4. Considering the aforementioned facts, especially that the petitioner has been in incarceration for over five years and conclusion of the trial will take some time, as thirty four witnesses are still remain to be examined. This Court does not find any justifiable reason to confine him to custody any longer which will be violative of his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is also a fact that material prosecution witnesses have already been examined, and no apprehension has been expressed of the petitioner threatening the witnesses or tampering with the evidence. 5. Accordingly, petition is allowed, and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, provided he is not required in any other case. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 10.09.2025 JUDGE Mehak Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No MEHAK HURIA 2025.09.10 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment