IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jobanpreet Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 18.03.2026 Date of Uploading : 18.03.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Dhruv Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. with 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.183 dated 06.11.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of IPC at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar.

2. The case of the prosecution, as emanating from the record, is that the complainant namely Ajay Kumar has stated to the police that his brother namely Suraj Kumar was found lying dead in his house with multiple injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The occurrence is stated to have taken place during the intervening night of 05/06.11.2023. Initially, the FIR was registered against unknown persons. However, during the course of investigation, suspicion arose against Mandeep Kaur (i.e. wife of the deceased) on account of her alleged illicit relationship with co-accused Gurpreet Singh and prior matrimonial discord. On the basis of CCTV footage and subsequent investigation, Mandeep Kaur and Gurpreet Singh were nominated as accused. During the course of interrogation, Mandeep Kaur had disclosed that the murder of Suraj Kumar was committed by Gurpreet Singh, Jobanpreet Singh (petitioner herein) and another co-accused Harjinder Singh with her connivance. The petitioner was stated to be arrested on 07.11.2023 and is also stated to have got recovered the motorcycle allegedly used in the commission of the offence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and his name has surfaced only on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and has no connection with the alleged crime. It has been further stated that the alleged recovery of the motorcycle has been planted upon the petitioner and no independent evidence connects him with the offence. It has been further contended that the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 07.11.2023 and the trial is progressing at a snail’s pace, as only 02 out of 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme titled as Sanjay Chandra versus CBI, (2012) 1 SCC, 40 to contend that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial violates the personal liberty of the petitioner. It has been further contended that there is no motive whatsoever for the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. Furthermore, in view of the large number of remaining witnesses, the conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served for continued incarceration of the petitioner. Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner has clean antecedents and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present case involves a brutal and premeditated murder committed in conspiracy. Learned State counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been specifically named by co- accused Mandeep Kaur in her disclosure statement and the investigation has revealed that the petitioner was an active participant in the execution of the conspiracy. Furthermore, the CCTV footage collected during the course of investigation reflects the movement of 04 persons on a motorcyc