##PAGE1##

CRM-M-14622-2026 (O&M)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

294 CRM-M-14622-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 02.04.2026

Deepak Raj ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Ms. Harkirat Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral)

This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner

under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.23 dated 15.04.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 34, 148, 149

of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Purana Shalla, District Gurdaspur.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Rahul’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that on 14.04.2024, he along with his wife and the family of his elder brother ‘Raju’, and cousin ‘Dharminder’ had attended the fair at ‘Pandori Dham’, where a boy aged about 20-23 brushed against the shoulder of ‘Dharminder’. As per complainant, subsequent thereto a quarrel erupted

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.03 13:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-14622-2026 (O&M)

2 between them and the abovesaid boy with the help of others attacked ‘Dharminder’ with knife. According to complainant with an intention to rescue ‘Dharminder’ when ‘Raju’ came forward 2-3 boys, accompanying the abovesaid assailant, joined the attack, and exhorted to kill ‘Raju’. The complainant further alleged that thereafter, they inflicted blows on the left side of neck and left shoulder of ‘Raju’. As per complainant, ‘Raju’ was immediately shifted to Hospital at Gurdaspur, and thereafter, to Abrol

Hospital, but he passed away during treatment.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on basis of abovementioned information, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation accused Prince @Abishek Masih and Akash Masih were arrested and when accused Prince @Abhishek Masih was interrogated, he suffered a disclosure statement,

wherein he nominated the present petitioner.

4. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present

petition.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that with regard to identity of assailant, the

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.03 13:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-14622-2026 (O&M)

3 Investigating Officer had recorded a supplementary statement of the complainant ‘Rahul’, on 15.04.2024, and that in the abovementioned supplementary statement the names of ‘Rahul’ son of ‘Raju Masih’, ‘Sanju Masih’ son of ‘Raju Masih’ and ‘Aman Kumar’ son of ‘Harbhajan’ were mentioned, but there was no mention of the name of petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that during the course of investigation the statement of eye-witness of the occurrence, namely ‘Dharminder’, was also recorded on 16.04.2024 and even in that statement it has been mentioned that fatal blow on the person of Raju was inflicted by

‘Abhishek Masih’, and not by the petitioner.

7. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that during the course of trial the statement of Dharminder has been recorded as PW-1, and while deposing in the Court, the PW-1 has deposed that fatal blow on the person of deceased ‘Raju’ was inflicted by ‘Rahul’ and not by the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already suffered a