CRM-M-19484-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 CRM-M-19484-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:27.07.2026 Mantar Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sangrar Singh Saron, Advocate, Ms. Kimreet Kaur Khurana, Advocate and Mr. Lakshya Jain, Advocate for the complainant. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.174, dated 15.08.2024, registered under Sections 103(1) and 61 of the BNS, at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by complainant – Rachhpal Singh, alleging therein that on the evening of 19.07.2024, his family members and himself had gone to celebrate the birthday of his grandson at Setia Resort, Kotkapura. His elder son Lakhwinderpal i.e. the victim returned home at about 9:30 pm whereas HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19484-2026 (O&M) -2- the complainant and his other family members came back at around 11:00 pm and found the doors of the house to be lying opened. The cash and other valuables kept in the house were also found missing. On checking the footage of CCTV camera, it was found that the victim had taken cash and other valuables from the house in some bag with the assistance of a person unknown to the complainant. He was also found missing. He made a call to the younger son of the complainant in the morning of 13.08.2024. The victim sounded to be very upset and told the younger son of the complainant that he had done everything on the asking of the present petitioner, who is cousin of the complainant. The victim also told his brother that the entire cash amount as taken from his house was now lying with the present petitioner and he was not returning the same by making excuses. The younger son of the complainant apprised him about this fact. On that very day, his younger son received several calls from the victim. He lastly received a call at about 7:15 pm and the victim informed that the petitioner had called him at Shahi Haveli, Faridkot to receive back his money and he will make a call after receiving the same. The complainant or his family, however, did not receive any call from the victim thereafter and in the morning of 15.08.2024, information about his dead body lying in a local canal was received. By alleging that the petitioner was responsible for the death of victim, prayer was made for taking action in the matter. 3. As per the further allegations, after registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 17.08.2024. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered a bag containing clothing of the deceased, a sum HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19484-2026 (O&M) -3- of Rs.3 lakhs and photographs of some certificates of the victim. He suffered another disclosure statement on 19.08.2024, in pursuance of which, he got recovered a bodkin by which the victim was assaulted. Recovery of one blood stained piece of broken beer bottle along with blood mixed soil was also effected at his instance. Investigation now stands completed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. From the post mortem examination report, it is clear that the injuries on the dead body could not be sustained by using bodkin. There is no direct evidence to the murder of the victim. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence and there is no circumstance to connect him with the commission of subject offences. The complainant has taken self contradictory stands at different points of time. There is no call detail record to show that the petitioner was in contact with the victim on 19.07.2024. Recovery has been falsely planted upon him. None of the articles so recovered have been linked to the petitioner through any scientific or forensic evidence. The case of the prosecution rests upon conjectures and surmises. He is in custody for a period of about 01 year and 11 months. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as only 01 out of 32 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The victim had sustained multiple injuries and most of these injuries could have been caused with bodkin and beer bottle which HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19484-2026 (O&M) -4- have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The recordings of conversation which took place between the victim and his brother as well as whatsApp chats have been taken into possession through pen drive and compact disc which show active complicity of the petitioner in the crime. On 19.07.2024, he was shown in the CCTV footage leaving the house of the complainant along with the victim and one more person. Recovery of incriminating circumstances in the form of clothing of the deceased as well as photographs of his certificates has been effected at the instance of the petitioner. Weapon of offence has also been recovered at his instance. Even call detail records and mobile location of the petitioner and deceased was found to be near the place of occurrence where the murder of the victim was committed. The call detail record shows that the petitioner and deceased had remained in telephonic contact after 19.07.2024 and had even talked on the date of occurrence. The victim was murdered by hatching a criminal conspiracy for monetary gain by the complainant. The trial may be expedited. With these broad submissions, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the murder of the victim in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by him. As per the allegations, he had received money from the victim and was not interested to return the same. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Mere fact that the trial is likely to take time or the period of incarceration are not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail when the offence alleged HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19484-2026 (O&M) -5- is serious in nature. In heinous crimes like the present one, an accused cannot be held entitled to seek concession of bail as a matter of right only on account of his prolonged incarceration. The petitioner stands accused of a heinous crime punishable with capital punishment or life imprisonment. It is also well-settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. In the light of the foregoing legal principles and other circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow this petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 8. It is clarified that any observation made in this order is only for deciding this petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits. 9. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 27.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.27 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document