IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

237 CRM-M-39154-2025 Decided on : 03.02.2026 Ankur . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Ms. Bhupinder Kaur Bhangu, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)

for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Iqbalpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:-

Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police Station District Petitioner(s) No.

Ankur 0130 19.09.2024 105, 238, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 Anaj Mandi Patiala [S. 27/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, added later on]

2. As per allegations levelled in the FIR by complainant Gurdayal Singh, his elder son, namely Harsh Kumar, aged about 20 years, was learning tailoring from one Kaushal Kumar (master) for the last about two years. Usually, he used to return home at around 09:00 P.M. However, on 15.09.2024, he did not come back home. The complainant’s younger son, namely Alekh, aged 16 years, received a call from Varun stating that Harsh Kumar had consumed excessive alcohol and was not feeling well, and that he would drop him home once Harsh felt better. On 16.09.2024, at about 09:00 A.M., another call was received from an unknown person informing that Harsh Kumar had fallen near a water tank in a drunken state. Thereupon, the complainant reached the spot and found that his son Harsh Kumar was lying face down near barbed wires placed on the edges of the fields. He was immediately taken to the hospital, where he subsequently expired. Entertaining suspicion against the friends of the deceased, namely Arun (petitioner herein) and co-accused Varun, the instant FIR was got registered after a delay of four days, i.e., on 19.09.2024.

In the FIR, complainant suspected that his son had been administered an overdose by the accused persons, which allegedly resulted in his death.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that as per the status report dated 26.09.2025 filed by the State, the cause of death has been opined as, “due to morphine overdose, which is antemortem in nature and is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.”

It is, therefore, contended that in the absence of any eye-witness account or any direct evidence to show that the alleged drug (morphine) was administered by the petitioner or his co-accused, such an allegation cannot be treated as a believable version, particularly when co-accused Varun himself had informed the complainant’s family about the drunken condition of the deceased on the previous night.

4. Learned counsel further argues that even the FIR has been registered after a delay of four days, which renders the prosecution version doubtful and indicative of subsequent embellishment based merely on suspicion. It is submitted that mere presence of the deceased in the company of the accused persons cannot ipso facto establish the offence of murder. The burden squarely lies upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the overdose of morphine was administered by the petitioner or his co- accused and that the death was not a result of voluntary consumption by the deceased himself.

It is further contended that in the absence of any allegation or evidence of forceful administration of any drug, and in the absence of any corroborative injuries noticed during postmortem examination, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are prima facie unsustainable. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 20.09.2025, and out of total cited 30 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. The case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence with no direct eye-witness account. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail.