IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

218+107 Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 Abhishek ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Legal Aid Counsel, for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

Mr. Mayur Singla, Advocate, for the applicant-complainant.

***

MANISHA BATRA , J. (Oral)

CRM-5144-2026 The application is allowed as prayed for and Annexure R-1 is taken on record.

Main Case

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:-

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

18 28.01.2024 Civil Lines Patiala,302 and 34 of IPC and 25 of District Patiala Arms Act, 1959 (392 and

427 of IPC added later on)

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 Shivinder Kataria alleging that on the intervening night of 27/28.01.2024, his brother Sameer Kataria had gone towards the vicinity of Gurudwara Dukhniwarn Sahib Patiala along with his friend Krishna Rattan to buy something when three youths had intercepted them. One of them had struck blow with knife whereas another had fired a shot at the victim Sameer Kataria and then they had fled away. On receipt of information about the incident from Krishna Rattan, the complainant had rushed to the spot and the victim had been taken to the hospital but had been declared to be brought dead.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. On 30.01.2024, one Sukhdev Singh @ Bhau recorded his statement before the police that he had heard the petitioner and co-accused Vicky Paswan, Sukhdeep Singh @ Ugha and Juvenile in conflict with law “D” while conversating with each other and discussing that they had killed the victim. The petitioner and co-accused were nominated as such. The petitioner was arrested on 17.02.2024. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered a dagger which was used by him at the time of committing offence of murder. He was identified by eye-witness Krishna Rattan as one of the assailants. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offence.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. The witness Krishna Rattan has been examined. There are no chances of his intimidating the said witness. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He is in custody for a period of about two years. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future as only 05 out of 25 witnesses have been examined so far. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. He was identified by PW Krishna Rattan during the course of investigation and even in his sworn deposition. The trial is going on at a proper pace. There is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.

7. The petitioner in furtherance of his common intention with the co-accused, is alleged to have intercepted the victim on the fateful night, opened an attack upon him by causing injuries with sharp edged weapon with intent to rob him of his vehicle and is alleged to have caused his death. Eye-witness Krishna Rattan has duly identified the petitioner as one of the assailants in his sworn depositio