IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.11.2025 Pujesh Yadav ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Ishwinderpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.97 of 2024 dated 07.12.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station GRP, Jalandhar, Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

2. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, it reflects that the GRP, Jalandhar, initiated proceedings after discovering the body of a 32 years old man near Kilometer 39/32-34 Railway Track. The deceased had multiple injuries –– five on the right cheek, two on the left cheek and one each behind the head and left ear. An FIR was registered against unknown persons. During inspection, the police found a bunch of hair clutched in the left fist of the deceased, which, alongwith bloodstained soil was collected as evidence. On 11.12.2024, Subhash Yadav identified the deceased as Ashish Kumar son of Parshotam Yadav from Bihar. On 15.12.2024, Chunni Lal Yadav stated that his nephew Sonu Yadav had confessed to killing deceased Ashish Kumar. Sonu disclosed that on 04.12.2024, after an arguments and a slap from Ashish Kumar, he took him to the railway tracks on 05.12.2024 made him consume liquor excessively and attacked him with a sharp edged weapon. Sonu was later apprehended while attempting to flee. During the course of interrogation, Sonu (a juvenile) revealed that he had been contacted via WhatsApp by Mithu and Pujesh Yadav (petitioner herein), who were allegedly embroiled in a land dispute with the father of the deceased, Ashish Kumar. They allegedly offered him Rs.3.00 lacs to murder Ashish Kumar. It has been further alleged that the Sonu had admitted to killing Ashish after intoxicating him and later assisted the police in recovering the weapon and other incriminating items concealed in bushes.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. The petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further iterated that the name of the petitioner does not appear in the FIR and has been roped in solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of Sonu Kumar (Juvenile-in-Conflict with law). Learned counsel has further submitted that the entire case rest purely on hearsay and on successive statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C./180 BNSS, which possesses no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. According to learned counsel, there exists no direct or circumstantial evidence whatsoever connecting the petitioner with the commission of alleged crime. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Parvat Singh v.

State of Madhya Pradesh (2020) 4 SCC 33 to contend that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against the accused except for contradictions. According to learned counsel, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false, frivolous and baseless. A bare reading of the FIR discloses that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and his name has been roped in the FIR without any cogent basis. Furthermore, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the grant of instant