Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20976 = 2026:PHHC:049433
Decided on: 30.03.2026
Alongwith
CRM-M-65905-2025, RAJINDER SINGH @ RAJU v. STATE OF PUNJAB
And
CRM-M-15279-2026, UDAY KHAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Present:
Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
(in CRM-M-54124-2025 and CRM-M-65905-2025)
Mr. Asutosh Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Yogesh Bains, Advocate for the petitioner.
(in CRM-M-15279-2026)
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Regular bail – Murder -- Material witnesses not supported the prosecution case -- Petitioners are in custody since 14.06.2024 but only 04 of the 29 prosecution witnesses examined, trial not likely to be concluded soon – Bail allowed.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 201, 452 – Regular bail – Murder -- Material witnesses including the bua of the deceased not supported the prosecution case -- They have not identified the petitioners even when the CCTV footage was put to them during cross-examination -- Whether the remaining evidence available against the petitioners is sufficient to establish their culpability shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the trial -- Petitioners are in custody since 14.06.2024 but only 04 of the 29 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, trial not likely to be concluded anytime soon – Bail allowed.
(Para 5)
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. –
The prayer in the present petitions under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.113 dated 13.06.2024 registered under Sections 302, 148 and 149 of IPC (Sections 201 and 452 IPC added later on) at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala.
2. Learned counsels for the petitioners contend that all the material witnesses have turned hostile. They have not even identified any of the accused in the CCTV footage of the alleged place of occurrence. As the petitioners are in custody since 14.06.2024 but only 04 of the 29 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon, and therefore, they be granted the concession of regular bail.
3. The learned counsel for the State has filed custody certificates and the same are taken on record. He contends that the CCTV footage of the area around the place of occurrence would show that while Harjit Singh and Rajinder Singh @ Raju were armed with bottle crates, Uday Khan was armed with bricks. The nature of the allegations does not entitle them to the concession of bail. He however concedes that the petitioners are in custody since 14.06.2024 and that 04 material witnesses have been examined all of whom have turned hostile.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Admittedly, when the material witnesses including the bua of the deceased-Kuldeep Kaur were examined, they have not supported the prosecution case. They have not identified the petitioners even when the CCTV footage was put to them during cross-examination. Whether the remaining evidence available against the petitioners is sufficient to establish their culpability shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the trial. The petitioners are in custody since 14.06.2024 but only 04 of the 29 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioners is not required.
6. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners, namely, Harjit Singh son of Inderjit Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Raju son of Rajwinder Singh and Uday Khan son of Shehbaz Khan are ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
7. The petitions stand disposed of.
8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases.
Petition allowed.
********