IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 08.12.2025 Pronounced on : 15.12.2025 Gurpreet Singh @Gurpita ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeet Sood, Advocate, Mr. Akash Khurana, Advocate and Mr. Varun Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 304 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, the FIR No.86 dated 16.08.2023 has been lodged in Police Station Bareta, District Mansa. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the commission of abovementioned offence and he has been arrested. The petitioner is in custody and, therefore, craving for bail. This is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being in the backdrop of following facts:-

On 16.08.2023, the dead body of Rajwinder Singh @Pappu was found and in response to abovementioned recovery, the brother of deceased, namely Gurpreet Singh, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only, stated that two days prior to the incident, i.e. on 14.08.2023, Gurpreet Singh @Gurprita (petitioner herein) had visited his home at 11:00–12:00 (forenoon), and that his brother, namely Rajwinder Singh @Pappu, left home along with the petitioner. As per complainant, when his brother did not return he made enquiries from the petitioner, who told him that Rajwinder Singh @Pappu was dropped at Guru Nanak College Budhlada. According to complainant, in the pursuit of tracing his brother, he and his friend repeatedly contacted Rajwinder Singh @Pappu, but could not get any clue, and ultimately the dead body of his brother was found. It was further stated by the above-named complainant that he had a doubt that something had been administered to his brother, due to which his brother passed away.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement formal FIR of this case for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 304/120-B of IPC, was lodged on 16.08.2023 and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, the post-mortem of the dead body of Rajwinder Singh @Pappu was conducted, and during the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 23.08.2023.

4. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 01.10.2023, a supplementary statement of the petitioner was recorded, wherein it has been revealed that on the fateful day, i.e. on 14.08.2023, the petitioner and his brother Rajwinder Singh @Pappu had consumed heroin, which was sold to them by Lakhan and Ram. According to prosecution, in view of abovementioned statement, the accused Lakhan was arrested on 01.10.2023 and the custody of Ram Singh was procured by virtue of production warrant on 11.10.2023.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that except the fact that there are allegations against the petitioner that deceased had left home along with the petitioner, there is no legally admissible evidence against him showing his involvement in the commission of crime. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, the instant case is not a case of murder, rather of culpable homicide, and that as per medical opinion, the cause of death is not ascertainable.

7. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, except the disclosure statement of petitioner, which was recorded when he was in police custody, there is no evidence against the petitioner, and that the petitioner is facing prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than 02 years and 03 months. While contending that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, the learned counsel for the petitioner has