220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4787-2025 Date of decision : 13.10.2025 Pargat Singh @ Kala ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Simran Goria, A.A.G., Punjab. RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Present third petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.06 dated 02.02.2023, under Sections 302 IPC and Sections 201 of IPC was added lateron, registered at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur.

2. As per the facts of the case, the FIR was lodged on the statement of complainant, namely, Rajpal Singh @ Jagjit Singh. It was alleged that on 01.02.2023 his brother Sebar Singh (deceased) after having food at about 8/8:30 pm, had gone on motorcycle to the motor Kotha. In the morning, at about 8:30 am he went to his motor and found dead-body of his brother Sebar Singh lying on the cot and it was drenched with the blood. He suspected that some unknown person had killed his brother. The request was made to take the legal action against the culprits. On registration of FIR, investigation commenced. During investigation, the complicity of the petitioner surfaced and thus, he was arrayed as an accused and was arrested on 06.02.2023. On conclusion of investigation, challan was presented and on framing the charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the learned trial Court, praying for grant of bail, however, finding no merit, the same was declined after hearing both the sides by Learned trial Court vide order dated 24.07.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing of CRM-M-40863-2023 and CRM-M-30447-2024, however, the same were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 05.02.2024 and 12.09.2024, respectively. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing of present third petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that evidently the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as the FIR had been lodged against the unknown person. He submits that the petitioner is the cousin of the complainant i.e. Massi’s son and he has been arrayed as an accused on the basis of suspicion that the deceased had illicit relations with the wife of the petitioner. It is submitted that on the basis supplementary statement, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the present case. He submits that once the case is based on circumstantial evidences, the prosecution is bound to produce the evidence which completes the chain of the circumstances, however, there are no evidences produced by the prosecution for the implication of the petitioner for the alleged offence. He submits that the petitioner is behind bars since 06.02.2023 and he has no criminal antecedents. He, thus submits that in the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that there was a strong motive with the petitioner to kill the deceased as he had suspected the illicit relations between his wife and deceased. It is submitted that after the occurrence the supplementary statement of complainant was recorded on 06.02.2023, wherein the petitioner was seen going towards Tubewell kotha and thus, there is last seen evidence which proves the complicity of the petitioner. She has also drawn the attention of this Court to the status report filed, and has submitted that the weapon of offence ‘sua’ had also been recovered from the petitioner, on his disclosure. She, on instructions, has submitted that out of 33 prosecution witnesses, only 09 witnesses have been examined so far. She has placed on record the custody certificates of the petition