CRM-M-26392-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 225 CRM-M-26392-2026 Date of decision : 07.07.2026 GURDEEP SINGH ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Narinder S. Lucky, 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.542 dated 30.11.2022, under Section 365 IPC (now Section 140(3) BNS, 2023), Sections 302, 397 & 411 IPC added later on (corresponding to Sections 103, 311, 317(2) BNS, 2023), registered at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Lakhvir Singh reported that his father Beera Singh, who was working as a driver, left the house on 23.11.2022 at about 3:00 PM alongwith the present petitioner- Gurdeep Singh in a Chhota Hathi vehicle bearing registration No.PB-08-BU- 9838 and thereafter did not return home. On the basis of suspicion, initially FIR was registered under Section 365 IPC. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was allegedly implicated on the basis of an extra-judicial confession stated to have been made before Surjit Singh, Sarpanch. SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.07 17.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-26392-2026 -2- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the entire prosecution case is based upon suspicion and circumstantial evidence. He submits that there is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence and the only allegation in the FIR is that the deceased was last seen in the company of the petitioner, which by itself is not sufficient to connect him with the alleged offence. It is further argued that the alleged motive attributed to the petitioner i.e. taking away the Chhota Hathi vehicle is highly improbable and even the said vehicle was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 03 years, 07 months and 03 days and is not involved in any other case. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as only 01 out of 27 cited prosecution witnesses has 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 custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 03 years, 07 months and 03 days. He, upon instructions, submits that only 01 out of 27 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 03 years, 07 months and 03 days, he is not involved in any other case, it is SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.07 17.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-26392-2026 -3- a case of blind murder and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as only 01 out of 27 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, 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. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar @ Banu versus State of Punjab, bearing Criminal Appeal No.1341/2026 (arising out of SLP(Cri.) No.18775/2025), decided on 13.03.2026, wherein it has been categorically held that where the accused has remained in custody for a considerable period and the trial has not even commenced, or is not likely to conclude in the near future, therefore, continued incarceration would amount to punishment without trial. In such circumstances, further detention pending trial is not necessary and the accused is entitled to be released on bail. 9. 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. 10. 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 07, 2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.07 17.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh