IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.241 CRM-M-2876-2026 Decided on : 10.02.2026 Shingara Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Parminder Singh-1, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.

***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.68 dated 08.09.2024, registered under Sections 103, 140, 61, 190, 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused abducted and caused fatal assault to Harduar Singh (Brother of complainant), which resulted into his death. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the perusal of the FIR shows that no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner, but only general allegations have been levelled against him. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the crime and the entire prosecution version is based on circumstantial evidence. He further submits that the complainant-Soma Kaur and the alleged eye-witness namely Gurtej Singh and Major Singh have not supported the case of prosecution and have been declared hostile. To lend force to his contention, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the statements Annexures P-1 to P-3 of the aforesaid witnesses made before the trial Court wherein none of them have supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that co-accused Parveet Kaur alias Preet and Gobind Singh has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 10.12.2025 and 29.01.2026 respectively. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. The petitioner is in custody since 09.10.2024 and nothing is to be recovered from him. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed. He further submits that there are total 28 prosecution witnesses and out of which, only 03 have been examined till date and as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He has further submitted that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused has committed heinous crime of murder and does not deserve any concession from this Court. However, he has not controverted the fact that the complainant and other material witnesses have been declared hostile and that the petitioner is a first time offender as he is not involved in any other case.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year and 03 months and 29 days; he has clean antecedents, investigation in the present case is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been framed; complainant and other material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile; out of 28 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date and the trial is proceeding at snail's pace and will take a long time to conclude, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in near