CRM-M No.6142 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 CRM-M No.6142 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 Baljit Kumar @ Beeta ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. J.S.Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab. Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate for the complainant. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.40 dated 13.05.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 302, 34, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Bhargo Camp, Commissionerate Jalandhar. 2. The above mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Manjit Singh’. It was reported by the above named police officer that he had received an information from Civil Hospital, Jalandhar that a person who had suffered fire arm injury was brought to the hospital. According to above named police officer he immediately went to the civil hospital and started investigation. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.6142 of 2026 (O&M) 2 3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned information, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to above named police officer the identity of the deceased was established, and thereafter, on the basis of secret information the petitioner was arrested. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation when the accused was interrogated at his instance a .30 bore pistol with live cartridges was recovered. 4. The learned State counsel have filed custody certificate of the petitioner and status report. The same be taken on record. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than two years and almost one month, and that the trial is taking place at a snail’s pace as out of 24 prosecution witnesses only one has been examined so far. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, as there is no eye-witness account. 7. With regard to recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of petitioner, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the same was planted when the petitioner was in custody, and that petitioner has clean antecedents. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that benefit of bail has already been accorded to co-accused namely ‘Karanpreet Singh’. 8. The learned State counsel being assisted by learned counsel for MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.6142 of 2026 (O&M) 3 the complainant has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned counsel for the complainant the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail on the ground of parity as the co-accused to whom the benefit of bail has been accorded was not carrying any weapon and nothing was recovered from his possession. 9. With regard to the role of the petitioner in the commission of offence, it has been contended by the learned State counsel that the weapon recovered at the instance of the petitioner was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and the FSL report has already been received, which shows that the empties recovered from the spot (where the incident had taken place) were fired from the pistol recovered from possession of petitioner. According to learned State counsel, in view of above, the direct nexus between the commission of offence and the present petition stands established and the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail. 10. The record has been perused carefully. 11. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: - i) that the total period of custody of the petitioner is two years and almost one month which cannot be observed, at this stage, that he has suffered a long incarceration, or that simply on the ground of delay in trial, the benefit of bail can be accorded to the petitioner; ii) that the direct nexus between the petitioner and commission of offence stands established as at the instance of petitioner the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.6142 of 2026 (O&M) 4 weapon of offence was recovered, and as per FSL Report the above mentioned weapon was used for the commission of offence; iii) that the ground of parity is not available to the petitioner as the co-accused who has been accorded the benefit of bail was not carrying any weapon and any incriminating material was not recovered from the possession of co-accused. 12. 12. Taking into consideration the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, the direct nexus of the petitioner with the commission of offence and the above discussed factors, it is hereby observed that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail and the present petition deserves dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed, accordingly. 13. However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations shall not have any bearing upon the merits of the case. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 06.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.07 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document