##PAGE1##

CRM-M-8731-2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209 CRM-M-8731-2026 Date of Decision: 02.04.2026

JEET SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

Present:- Mr. Ashit Malik, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhinav Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, in case FIR No.119 dated 01.06.2024 under Sections 302,148,149 IPC (later on added Section 120-B IPC) registered at

Police Station Patran, District Patiala.

2. The present case has been registered on the statement of one Sunita Rani, wife of late Megha Singh, alleging that Davinder Singh @ Jinder, Jeet Singh, Meeto Kaur, Navjot Kaur, Veermati Kaur, Jarnail Singh @ Jaili, Ramesh Chand, Kala Singh, Laalu, Ladi, and four unknown persons had inflicted injuries upon her husband, which ultimately led to his death. It is further alleged that these facts were disclosed to the complainant by her husband, Megha Singh (since deceased), when he was being taken to the

hospital.

RENU RAWAT

2026.04.02 15.52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-8731-2026 -2-

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an unexplained delay of 27 hours in the lodging of the FIR and the deceased succumbed to his injuries after about 8 hours of the incident. It is contended that this delay has been utilized to falsely implicate the petitioner, with whom the complainant’s family had a prior enmity. He further submits that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that the alleged dying declaration is stated to have been made by the deceased before his wife, wherein he named all the accused persons. However, learned Senior counsel contends that the deceased was not in a fit condition to make any such statement. Moreover, if the deceased was indeed in a condition to make a statement, the same ought to have been recorded by the police authorities in accordance with law. It is further argued that the petitioner had earlier been implicated in an FIR at the instance of the complainant, and therefore, he has

been falsely implicated once again in the present case.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Rohit Hans, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner and status report by way of affidavit of Inderpal Chauhan, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Patran, District Patiala, in Court, which are taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for more than 01 year, 09 months and 25 days and is involved in three other cases. He further submits that the deceased had suffered eight injuries on his arms and legs and died due to hypovolemic shock, which resulted from the injuries stated

RENU RAWAT

2026.04.02 15.52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-8731-2026 -3-

hereinabove, all of which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further submits that out of 26 cited

prosecution witnesses, only 4 have been examined so far.

6. This fact is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that only one witness has been partly examined. It is further submitted that the complainant has not been appearing for the last five dates, despite

non-bailable warrants having been issued against her.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

8. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for more than 01 year, 09 months and 25 days and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of reg