CRM-M-8553-2026 205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ravi Kumar State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG Punjab. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the present petitioner in FIR No. 158 dated 02.10.2024 registered under 191(3), 190 and 189(4) of Sardulgarh, District Mansa. 2. Brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant Abhey Ram, who alleged that Panch and nomination forms were being scrutinized. It was alleged that the victim Radhey Sham had left in his car during the night and the next morning his dead body was found lying in the car near the spor complainant suspected that certain persons, including the present petitioner along with other co-accused, had conspired and caused the homicidal death of the victim. During investigation, the petitioner was nominated as an ac 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the present petitioner in FIR No. 158 dated 02.10.2024 registered under Sections 103(1), 324(4) (5)(6) 191(3), 190 and 189(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Sardulgarh, District Mansa. Brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant Abhey Ram, who alleged that Panchayat elections were to take place in village Sardulgarh and nomination forms were being scrutinized. It was alleged that the victim Radhey Sham had left in his car during the night and the next morning his dead body was found lying in the car near the spor complainant suspected that certain persons, including the present petitioner along accused, had conspired and caused the homicidal death of the victim. During investigation, the petitioner was nominated as an ac -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8553-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the present petitioner in FIR No. Sections 103(1), 324(4) (5)(6), 61(2), the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant Abhey ayat elections were to take place in village Sardulgarh and nomination forms were being scrutinized. It was alleged that the victim Radhey Sham had left in his car during the night and the next morning his dead body was found lying in the car near the sports stadium of the village. The complainant suspected that certain persons, including the present petitioner along accused, had conspired and caused the homicidal death of the victim. During investigation, the petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the present petitioner in FIR No. , 61(2), the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant Abhey ayat elections were to take place in village Sardulgarh and nomination forms were being scrutinized. It was alleged that the victim Radhey Sham had left in his car during the night and the next morning his dead ts stadium of the village. The complainant suspected that certain persons, including the present petitioner along accused, had conspired and caused the homicidal death of the victim. cused on the basis of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8553-2026 suspicion raised by the brother of the deceased and he was subsequently arrested. It is alleged that the petitioner suffered a disclosure statement during investigation and pursuant thereto a wooden stick allegedly used in the occurre recovered. The case of the prosecution primarily rests upon circumstantial evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his involvement surfaced only on the basis of suspicion raised by the brother of the deceased. It is further contended that the case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence and the petitioner has been implicated on the basi investigation. The alleged recovery of the weapon has also been effected on the basis of the said disclosure statement. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the las is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 4. Per contra application on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the present case and, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the prosecution is primarily based upon circumstantial evidence and the petitioner was not named in the FIR. His involvement surfaced subsequently during investigation on the basis of suspicion and the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him. The alleged recovery of weapon has also 2026 (O&M) suspicion raised by the brother of the deceased and he was subsequently arrested. It is alleged that the petitioner suffered a disclosure statement during investigation and pursuant thereto a wooden stick allegedly used in the occurre recovered. The case of the prosecution primarily rests upon circumstantial Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner was med in the FIR and his involvement surfaced only on the basis of suspicion raised by the brother of the deceased. It is further contended that the case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence and the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him during investigation. The alleged recovery of the weapon has also been effected on the basis of the said disclosure statement. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last one year, five months and five days and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail application on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the oner in the present case and, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the prosecution is primarily upon circumstantial evidence and the petitioner was not named in the FIR. His involvement surfaced subsequently during investigation on the basis of suspicion and the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him. The alleged recovery of weapon has also been effected pursuant to the said disclosure -2- suspicion raised by the brother of the deceased and he was subsequently arrested. It is alleged that the petitioner suffered a disclosure statement during investigation and pursuant thereto a wooden stick allegedly used in the occurrence was recovered. The case of the prosecution primarily rests upon circumstantial Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner was med in the FIR and his involvement surfaced only on the basis of suspicion raised by the brother of the deceased. It is further contended that the case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence and the petitioner has been s of disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him during investigation. The alleged recovery of the weapon has also been effected on the basis of the said disclosure statement. Learned counsel further submits that the t one year, five months and five days and the trial , learned State counsel has opposed the present bail application on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the oner in the present case and, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the prosecution is primarily upon circumstantial evidence and the petitioner was not named in the FIR. His involvement surfaced subsequently during investigation on the basis of suspicion and the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him. The alleged been effected pursuant to the said disclosure suspicion raised by the brother of the deceased and he was subsequently arrested. It is alleged that the petitioner suffered a disclosure statement during investigation nce was recovered. The case of the prosecution primarily rests upon circumstantial Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner was med in the FIR and his involvement surfaced only on the basis of suspicion raised by the brother of the deceased. It is further contended that the case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence and the petitioner has been s of disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him during investigation. The alleged recovery of the weapon has also been effected on the basis of the said disclosure statement. Learned counsel further submits that the t one year, five months and five days and the trial , learned State counsel has opposed the present bail application on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the oner in the present case and, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the prosecution is primarily upon circumstantial evidence and the petitioner was not named in the FIR. His involvement surfaced subsequently during investigation on the basis of suspicion and the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him. The alleged been effected pursuant to the said disclosure TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8553-2026 statement. It is also not disputed that a co stated to be on similar footing, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 28.11.20 the last one year, five months and five days and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without commenting upon the merits of the case, petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Ravi Kumar is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 8. However, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands March 13, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2026 (O&M) statement. It is also not disputed that a co-accused, namely Ishwar Chand, who is stated to be on similar footing, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2025. The petitioner is also in custody for the last one year, five months and five days and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Ravi Kumar is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate /surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty However, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- accused, namely Ishwar Chand, who is stated to be on similar footing, has already been granted the concession of regular 25. The petitioner is also in custody for the last one year, five months and five days and the trial is likely to take In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Ravi Kumar is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate /surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty However, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No accused, namely Ishwar Chand, who is stated to be on similar footing, has already been granted the concession of regular 25. The petitioner is also in custody for the last one year, five months and five days and the trial is likely to take In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without this Court is of the opinion that the Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner Ravi Kumar is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate /surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty However, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document