Bail granted due to lack of substantial evidence and hostile witness testimonies.

MANISHA BATRA , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “ BNSS ”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Gurpreet Kaur alleging that on 10.10.2023, her husband Daljinder Singh had gone to Rampura for some personal work. He did not come home and his phone was also found to be switched off in the night. She made search for him but could not find him anywhere. Initially, a case under Section 365 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the dead body of the victim was recovered on 23.10.2023. Postmortem examination and inquest proceedings were conducted. Offences under Sections 364 , 302, 201, 120-B, 148 and 149 of IPC were added. Offence under Section 365 read with Section 34 was deleted. The petitioner and co-accused were nominated as such on the allegations that they had abducted the victim, killed him and had concealed his dead body to cause disappearance of evidence of the offence. The petitioner was arrested on 01.12.2023. The co-accused were also arrested. Presently, he along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. No specific role or injury has been attributed to him. No recovery has been effected from him. There is delay of six days in registration of FIR which has not been explained. The material witnesses Gurpreet Kaur i.e. the complainant and Baljinder Singh have not supported the prosecution version and have turned hostile. There is no eye-witness to the murder of the victim. There is no circumstance to connect the petitioner with the subject crime. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be released on bail.

4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions.

6. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy and also alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly, in pursuance of which the victim was abducted, killed and his dead body was concealed to cause disappearance of the evidence of offence. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. The material prosecution witnesses i.e. the complainant – Gurpreet Kaur and Baljinder Singh, brother of the deceased have been examined as PW-2 and PW-1 respectively. Copies of their sworn depositions have been placed on record and revealed that neither of them have implicated the present petitioner in the commission of subject offence. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. No circumstance pointing the involvement of the petitioner in the subject crime is stated to have been collected by the prosecution. Keeping in view the nature of evidence that has come on record in the form of testimonies of the above two material witnesses, period of incarceration of the petitioner and the attendant facts and circumstances, but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case lest the same prejudice th