CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35603 35603 35603 35603---- 224 224 224 224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Raju alias Gautam Gota State of Punjab Date of Date of Date of Date of Decision Decision Decision Decision Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner 21.01.2026, registered for the off 2023 (erstwhile Section 304 of IPC) Mansa. 2. complainant, namely, Anil Kumar stated that on 13.01.2026, Kumar, had accompanied the not return on the same day. It is further alleged that when Shivam returned on 14.01.2026, he was not in a stable condition. Consequently, he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Mansa, from where he was referred to AIIMS, Bathinda for furth treatment. The complainant further alleged that the deteriorated condition of Shivam was the result of an overdose allegedly administered by the ----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35603 35603 35603 35603----2026 2026 2026 2026 Raju alias Gautam Gota Versus Punjab Decision Decision Decision Decision: : : : July 09 July 09 July 09 July 09, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July 09 July 09 July 09 July 09, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Madhav Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section grant of regular bail to the petitioner, registered for the offences punishable under Section 2023 (erstwhile Section 304 of IPC), at Police Station City The gravamen of allegations against the petitioner complainant, namely, Anil Kumar stated that on 13.01.2026, Kumar, had accompanied the petitioner (herein not return on the same day. It is further alleged that when Shivam returned on 14.01.2026, he was not in a stable condition. Consequently, he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Mansa, from where he was referred to AIIMS, Bathinda for furth The complainant further alleged that the deteriorated condition of Shivam was the result of an overdose allegedly administered by the 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ….Petitioner …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. filed under Section 483 of the BNSS in case bearing FIR No.22 dated ences punishable under Section 105 of the BNS, , at Police Station City-2 Mansa, District allegations against the petitioner is that the complainant, namely, Anil Kumar stated that on 13.01.2026, his son, Shivam herein) Narwana on 13.01.2026 and did not return on the same day. It is further alleged that when Shivam returned on 14.01.2026, he was not in a stable condition. Consequently, he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Mansa, from where he was referred to AIIMS, Bathinda for further The complainant further alleged that the deteriorated condition of Shivam was the result of an overdose allegedly administered by the petitioner 1111 ….Petitioner …Respondent 483 of the BNSS dated 105 of the BNS, 2 Mansa, District the his son, Shivam 13.01.2026 and did not return on the same day. It is further alleged that when Shivam returned on 14.01.2026, he was not in a stable condition. Consequently, he was taken to the er The complainant further alleged that the deteriorated condition of petitioner MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.09 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35603 35603 35603 35603----2026 2026 2026 2026 (herein), which, according to the complainant, had been disclosed to him by Shivam himself. The prosecution further asserts that while undergoing treatment at AIIMS, Bathinda, Shivam succumbed to his condition. The petitioner (herein) was arrested on 24.01.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 24.01.2026. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further urged that assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the petitioner is accused of taking drugs along with Shivam (deceased), wherein, it is alleged that the petitioner consumed lower dose whereas he administered higher dose to Shivam on account of which he passed away. Learned counsel has further submitted that offence under Section 105 of the BNS (erstwhile Section 304 of IPC) is not made out from the factual milieu of the case in hand against the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are direct/ serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 08.07.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 24.01.2026, whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan has been presented on 25.03.2026. Total 16 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is conceded case before this Court that even charges are yet not framed. It is, thus, indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contention raised at Bar, including as to whether offence under Section 105 of the BNS (erstwhile Section 304 of IPC) is MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.09 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35603 35603 35603 35603----2026 2026 2026 2026 made out or not against the petitioner, give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 08.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 05 months and 13 days. 6.2. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Maulana Maulana Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Sridhar Sridhar Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of H Akhilesh Singh v. State of H Akhilesh Singh v. State of H Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana aryana aryana aryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed allowed allowed allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.09 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35603 35603 35603 35603----2026 2026 2026 2026 concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 09 July 09 July 09 July 09, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.09 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment