IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

231 Date of decision: 09.07.2025 Kewal Masih @ Sunny .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab assisted by ASI Wilson Waris.

****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.217 dated 17.07.2023 under Sections 302/406 of the IPC (Sections 201 and 34 of the IPC added lateron) registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2. Short reply by way of affidavit of Arvind Meena, IPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, North, Amritsar, has been filed in the Court today which is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

A copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel opposite.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.07.2023 in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence; the petitioner was arraigned as an accused on the basis of statements made by PW Gurwinder Singh and Hardeep Singh, who stand examined; both these prosecution witnesses Gurwinder Singh and Hardeep Singh overheard a conversation between the accused, including the petitioner qua their plan to loot the house of the deceased. Learned counsel has submitted that even otherwise the only role attributed to the petitioner, though totally false and fabricated, is not of having inflicted any injury much less fatal upon the deceased, but of only standing guard outside the place of occurrence while the co- accused carried out the crime inside the house of the deceased. It has been submitted that identically placed co-accused Lovepreet Singh @ Katla has since been extended the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2024 and hence, on parity, the petitioner also deserved a similar relief.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has not disputed the custody period of the petitioner nor has he disputed that the entire case of the prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence coupled with the fact that 02 material witnesses PW Gurwinder Singh and PW Hardeep Singh already stand examined. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner has not been attributed any injury much less fatal upon the deceased and the only role qua the petitioner which surfaced during interrogation of the co-accused is that of having stood guard outside the place of occurrence when the crime in question was being carried out by the co-accused.

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

6. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce the FIR, which reads as under:-

“Statement of Anarica Singh wife of Gaurav resident of house no. 70, Friends Colony, Patel Chowk, P.S. Division No. 2, Pathankot, aged around 37 years, mobile no. 70870-88507. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and my marriage has taken place with Gaurav in the year 2009. We are two sisters, I am elder one and younger to me is Anjouri who lives in Nirvana Green 4, Kharar and there are two brothers, out of whom the elder one name is Mayank Sodhi and younger to him is Ashirwad Sodhi who both resides in Mumbai and they have got no interaction with us i.e. two sisters and our father Gulshan Singh Sodhi for the last 13 years and our mother Amarpreet Kaur had obtained divorce from our father in the year March, 2009 and due to the said reason, my father Gulshan Singh Sodhi son of Sh. Pritam Singh has been residing alone in house no. 6148, Gali no. 3, Indira colony in front of Govt. Hospital, Mustafabad, Amritsar and he is aged around 67 years and has been residing at above mentioned address. For the last one and half year back, my father has been suffering from cancer illness and his