CRM-M-37299-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 CRM-M-37299-2026 Decided on :27.08.2026 Karan Kumar . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, Asst. A.G., 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. 0165 dated 22.06.2025, under Sections 109, 127(6), 105, 238, 3(5) of BNS (Sections 307, 346, 304, 201, 34 IPC) and Sections 29, 61,85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur. 2. Complainant-Pawan Kumar got registered the FIR, which reads as under : “ Stated that 1 am a resident of the aforesaid address and 1 am engaged in agriculture. My wife, Jyoti Bala, passed away about 14 years ago. My only son, Harshit Kumar, who is about 17 years and 05 months old, with date of birth 02.01.2008, is a student of class 10+2 at Government Senior Secondary School, Dinanagar. The school was closed for holidays, and on 16.06.2025 at 12:00 noon, Harshit Kumar had left home for the bus stand for some household work, but he has not réturned 3) BNS, 25 home till now. We have been searching for him among our relatives, at religious places, etc., but have found no trace of Harshit Kumar so far. His age is about 17 years and 05 months, height 5 feet 07 inches, fair complexion, crooked nasal bone, and a scar from an injury on the back of his head. He has a slim and THlagile build. He was wearing brown coloured pyjamas, a black T-shirt, and blue and red slippers on his feet. I acer 2026.08.27 20:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37299-2026 2 am certain that some unknown person has wrongfully confined my son, Harshit Kumar, and has kept him in a place such that no one can find out his whereabouts. 1, along with Kapil Sharma (brother), was on my way to you when I met you. Legal action may be initiated. Sd/- Pawan Kumar, the aforesaid. Witness:Sd/- Kapil Sharma (brother) Attested: Sd/- Ramesh Kumar, ASl.ps Dina Nagar dated 2.06.2025.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that, as per the FIR itself, the complainant’s son, namely Harshit Kumar, was a minor aged about 17 years and 05 months and had left his house on his own on 16.06.2025 at about 12:00 noon. Initially, the allegations were against some unknown person(s). Subsequently, the dead body of Harshit Kumar was recovered and, as per the medical opinion, his death was attributed to an ‘overdose of drugs’. During investigation, on the basis of the supplementary statement of the complainant, it was alleged that the drug overdose had been administered to Harshit Kumar by co-accused Kunal @ Kannu @ Kunal Gill, in connivance with the present petitioner,-Karan Kumar. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is specifically named in the supplementary statement of the complainant, wherein it has been alleged that the deceased was administered an overdose of drugs by co-accused Kunal @ Kannu @ Kunal Gill in connivance with the petitioner. It is further submitted that the deceased was a minor aged about 17 years and 05 months and the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Hence, no ground for grant of bail is made out at this stage. acer 2026.08.27 20:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37299-2026 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book. 6. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:- i) that the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than one year; ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iii) that the instant case is a case wherein there is no eye-witness account; iv) that except the confessional statement of the petitioner himself, and the supplementary statement of complainant, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime; v) that the supplementary statement of the complainant does not carry a good probative value, as the complainant was not present, when drug was administered to his son; vi) that the confessional statement of the petitioner appears to be inadmissible in evidence, as the same was recorded when the petitioner was already in custody and pursuant to above mentioned confessional statement nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of petitioner; vii) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; acer 2026.08.27 20:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37299-2026 4 viii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of 17 prosecution witnesses not even a single witness has been examined; ix) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; xi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 7. 7. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant acer 2026.08.27 20:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37299-2026 5 or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. 8. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”. 9. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been acer 2026.08.27 20:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37299-2026 6 observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. 10. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another’ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 11. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the aforesaid factors, coupled with the stage of the trial, wherein there are a total of 17 prosecution witnesses and none has been examined so far, as well as the fact that the petitioner isn in custody since 19.08.2025, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby 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. acer 2026.08.27 20:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37299-2026 7 12. 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. 13. Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 27.08.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No acer 2026.08.27 20:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document