CRM-M-13915-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 CRM-M-13915-2026 Decided on :22.07.2026 Navjot Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. P.K. Kishanpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.78 dated 19.10.2022 (P-1), under Sections 302, 34, 120-B IPC (Sections 103, 3(5), 61(2) of BNS), registered at Police Station Balachaur, District SBS Nagar. 2. As per the prosecution case, as culled out from paragraph 7 of the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, relevant facts are as under: “ Initially present FIR was registered against unknown persons, subsequently, during the course of investigation, upon the basis of secret inpurts regarding the murder having been committed at the instance of accused-Akshay Kumar, who happened to be the brother of Amarjit Kaur, with whom the son of victim had solemnized love marriage, but the victim had expressed his resentment for the same and had got effected divorce between the couple, and co-accused- non-applicants, have committed the murder of deceased- RASHMI 2026.07.23 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13915-2026 2 victim, applicant-accused and his co-accused were nominated in the present FIR.” 3. During the course of investigation, CCTV footage from various houses in the village was collected. The footage allegedly shows petitioner and his co-accused passing through the village on a motorcycle at the relevant time. Further, Gurpreet Kaur (PW-10), daughter-in-law of the deceased, identified petitioner as the person who had called the deceased out of his house and taken him away on a motorcycle. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and that there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is argued that merely because the CCTV footage shows the petitioner accompanying the deceased on a motorcycle, no inference can be drawn that the petitioner participated in or committed the murder. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has failed to produce any material establishing petitioner's involvement beyond such circumstances. It is further submitted that co-accused-Manpreet Singh, who is similarly situated, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order annexed as Annexure P-11. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid co- accused was granted bail after remaining in custody for approximately 2 RASHMI 2026.07.23 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13915-2026 3 years, 7 months and 21 days, whereas the petitioner is in custody for a period of last 3 years and 8 months. It is also contended that the material witnesses have already been examined and four prosecution witnesses have been given up. Consequently, there is no likelihood of the petitioner influencing the prosecution evidence. 6. On the ground of parity with the co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, coupled with the prolonged period of incarceration and the progress made in the trial, learned counsel prays for the grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that trial is at the fag end. It is further contended that there is strong evidence against the petitioner, including the extra-judicial confession made before one Malkit Singh, whose testimony is yet to be recorded and is fixed for 29.07.2026 through video conferencing. In these circumstances, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of present petition. 8. I have considered the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the order dated 08.07.2025 whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court granted the concession of regular bail to co-accused-Manpreet Singh @ Mani. It is not disputed that both petitioner and said co-accused were allegedly together at the relevant time. Once a similarly situated co-accused has already been enlarged on bail nearly a year ago, plea of the petitioner seeking parity RASHMI 2026.07.23 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13915-2026 4 deserves due consideration. Besides, PW-10 Gurpreet Kaur (daughter-in- law of the deceased) and one of the material witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, already stands examined. In the facts and circumstances of present case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the evidence likely to be adduced during trial, and considering the principle of parity as well as the stage of the trial, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 9. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the case independently, on the basis of evidence available on record, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. 10. Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 22.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.07.23 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document