IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 17.03.2025 Lalit Kumar @ Radhe ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ………..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present: Mr. Anterpreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

*****

H.S. GREWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.73 dated 25.05.2024 under Sections 302, 34 of IPC (Section 201 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Tibba, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana.

2. Custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed on behalf of learned State counsel, the same is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case in the absence of any evidence. Learned counsel contended that deceased was a drug addict and he died due to drug overdose in the morning in his house, when there was no eye witness of the alleged murder. The deceased was having dispute with his wife and the accused/petitioner was implicated in the present case because once he intervened in the dispute arisen between them. Moreover, there was a delay of more than 3 days in lodging the FIR. It was further contended by learned counsel that investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed in this case, as such, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him behind the bars. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has undergone a period of 9 months and 15 days. Lastly, learned counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the accused/petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations against the accused/petitioner are grave and serious in nature.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6. Once the investigation already stands concluded with the filing of challan, there would be no justification for extending incarceration of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

8. Needless to add, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.

(H.S. GREWAL)

JUDGE

17.03.2025 anil Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No