IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.12.2025

245 CRM-M-64331-2025 JAGTAR SINGH ALIAS TARI ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent 245(1) CRM-M-64333-2025 RANJIT SINGH ALIAS SONU NAI ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.

*****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. By this common order, above noted petitions are being decided together as all the petitions related to common FIR.

2. These petitions under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.99 dated 13.08.2025, under Sections 105, 3(5) of BNS (Section 238 of BNS and Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Jodhan, District Ludhiana Rural.

3. Status report by way of an affidavit of Varinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dakha, District Ludhiana (Rural) filed on behalf of the State is taken on record in both the cases.

4. The present case was registered on the basis of statement given to the police by Gurdeep Singh with the allegations that on 11.08.2025, his son Taranpreet Singh was present in the house. One Manpreet Singh @ Mani came to the house and told his son that Jugjiwan Singh @ Jiwan and Ranjit Singh @ Sonu Nai (petitioner) are sitting in the stadium and are waiting for them. They used to give intoxicating injections to his son and his son used to consume intoxicating material sometimes. He further alleged that some days ago, they had caught Manpreet Singh @ Mani, Jugjiwan Singh @ Jiwan and Ranjit Singh @ Sonu for giving injections to his son. Jagtar Singh @ Tari (petitioner) was also accompanying them at that time and he had heard the conversation of his son and co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Mani to this effect. Later on, he came to know that these persons had given some intoxicating injection to his son, as a result of which he died and he sought action against the accused. After completion of investigation, challan has been presented against the accused for trial.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Deceased was addicted to drugs and it has been alleged that he was administered some drug or injection and he died due to overdose. Learned counsel next contended that cause of death has not been ascertained till date as the report of viscera and report of FSL have not been received. There is no allegation in the FIR that on the date of incident, petitioner Jagtar Singh @ Tari had come and taken away his son and the only allegation is against Manpreet Singh @ Mani who had come and taken the deceased along with him. Learned counsel further contended that no offence under Section 105 of BNS is made out as deceased has allegedly died due to drug overdose, who himself was an addict. Petitioner Jagtar singh @ Tari is in custody since 13.08.2025 and Petitioner Ranjit Singh @ Sonu Nai is in custody since 14.08.2025. Co-accused namely Jugjiwan Singh @ Jiwan has been released on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2025. After completion of investigation, challan has been presented. The trial will take a long time to conclude and further detention of the petitioners is not required and they may be released on bail.

7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail and argued that in view of the gravity of the offence, petitioners do not deserve the concession of bail.

8. It is not in dispute that the deceased himself was a drug addict. As to whether he has died due to drug overdose and whether the petitioners have administered the drug or not shall be moot questions during the trial. Even viscera report and report of FSL have not been r