CRM-M-33042-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 239 CRM-M-33042-2026 Date of decision : 06.07.2026 BUTA SINGH ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB .. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.06 dated 20.01.2025 under Sections 103, 238, 61(2) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 302, 201 & 120-B IPC), registered at Police Station, City Morinda. 2. The case of the prosecution is that deceased-Rajan Verma was friends with Kamalpreet Singh @ Johny, Gurpreet Singh @ Jassi and Buta Singh (present petitioner) and all of them were allegedly drug addicts. On 17.01.2025, Rajan Verma had accompanied co-accused Kamalpreet Singh @ Johny, however, he did not return thereafter. It is alleged that the petitioner, in connivance with his co-accused, committed the murder of Rajan Verma by administering an intoxicating substance to him. As per the prosecution version, the said intoxicant was injected by co-accused Kamalpreet Singh @ Johny, whereas the petitioner and other co-accused were allegedly present at the spot at the time of administering the same. Thereafter, the dead body of Rajan Verma was allegedly wrapped in a blanket, placed in a Maruti car bearing SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.06 18.27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-33042-2026 -2- registration No.CH-03R-8533 and thrown into the Bhakra Canal. Subsequently, on 21.01.2025, the said Maruti car along with the dead body of Rajan Verma was recovered from the Bhakra Canal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the present case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner is neither alleged to have administered the intoxicating substance to the deceased nor to have caused any injury to him. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the spot and allegedly assisted in disposal of the body, under the impression that the deceased had already died. Learned counsel further submits that even as per the medical evidence, the cause of death has been opined to be drowning and not due to administration of any intoxicating substance, which creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution version. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 05 months and 10 days and is not involved in any other case. He also submits that co-accused, namely, Shingara Singh @ Shankar has already been granted bail by this Court in CRM-M-57130-2026 on 06.03.2026 (Annexure P-5). He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as none out of 23 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. As per the SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.06 18.27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-33042-2026 -3- custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 05 months and 10 days. He, upon instructions, submits that although charges have been framed but none out of 23 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year, 05 months and 10 days, he is not involved in any other case, it is a case of circumstantial evidence, co-accused has already been granted bail and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as the trial is yet to commence, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 9. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) July 06, 2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.06 18.27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh