IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jashanpreet and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 11.03.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 18.03.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 18.03.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kashish Sahni, Advocate and Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Advocate for the complainant.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 29 dated 15.05.2025 registered under Sections 103(1), 140(1), 351(3) and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Fattu Dhinga, District Kapurthala.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Jugraj Singh, alleging that his younger brother Sodh Singh was serving as a teacher in private school at village Dhaliwal Bet and village Raipur Peer Baksh, District Kapurthala and was living in a rented accommodation at Bhulath. He used to visit his native village once in a week. In the morning of 09.05.2025, he had informed his father on phone that due to holidays in the school, he was coming home and that he had proceeded from village Bhulath. However, he did not reach home till late evening. Even his phone was found to be switched off. Search was made for him, but he could not be located. Matter was reported to the police on 10.05.2025. On 14.05.2025, his dead body was found lying in the area of police Station Fattu Dhinga, District Kapurthala. The same was brought to the police station and was identified by the complainant. Injuries were found on the dead body of the victim. The complainant raised suspicion that the victim was murdered by Jagmohan Singh with whom the victim was having enmity or by some other persons acting at his instance. The above named Jagmohan Singh was nominated as accused.

3. The accused Jagmohan Singh was arrested on 15.05.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. He revealed that he had hatched a criminal conspiracy with his brother-in-law, co-accused Gurnek Singh, to commit the murder of the victim. In furtherance of this conspiracy, the petitioners and co-accused Pohaljit Singh, Ram Bahadur, and Mukhtiar Singh abducted the victim and subsequently carried out the murder. The petitioners were arrested on 15.05.2025. On interrogation, they too suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. Investigation now stands completed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused Jagmohan Singh which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. No recovery has been effected from them. They had no motive to kill the victim. The case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence and there is no direct or indirect evidence to connect them with the subject crime. The chain of events to connect them is totally broken and incomplete. They are in custody since long. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. Their further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that they deserve to be released on bail. 5. Status report has been filed by respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioners, they do not deserve to be extended benefit o