219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :13.02.2026 Sukhdev Ram @ Sukha .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr.Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG, Punjab -.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

This is the second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 27 dated 24.03.2024, registered under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, 1860 (subsequently Sections 396 and 120-B IPC, 1860 added), at Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda.

As per the prosecution case, the present FIR was initially registered against unknown persons on the statement of Harwinder Kaur regarding the murder of her husband. Subsequently, during investigation, the supplementary statement of Manjit Singh, brother of the deceased, was recorded, wherein he alleged that on 22.03.2024, the present petitioner Sukhdev Ram @ Sukha along with co-accused namely Harpreet Singh @ Dhakkan, Baljit Singh @ Billa, Baljit Ram @ Ballu and Harjit @ Sultan were involved in the occurrence. It was alleged that the accused persons caused injuries to the deceased near the bus stand of Village Lehra Sohnda and also snatched cash and mobile phone. On the basis of the said supplementary statement and DDR No.19 dated 02.04.2024, the petitioner and other co-accused were nominated in the present case. During investigation, Sections

396 and 120-B IPC were added.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not named in the original FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a supplementary statement. It is submitted that earlier, the regular bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 19.12.2024, wherein it was specifically observed that the petitioner had been implicated on the basis of an alleged extra-judicial confessional statement made before one Dogar Singh.

It is argued that in compliance with the observations made in the earlier order, the prosecution has examined the material witnesses during trial. All the material witnesses, including Dogar Singh, have been examined and they have turned hostile. None of them has supported the prosecution version. It is further submitted that none of the said witnesses has identified the present petitioner in Court and rather they have exonerated him from the allegations. Therefore, the very foundation on which the petitioner was implicated, namely the alleged extra-judicial confession, now stands demolished.

It is further contended that the petitioner is in custody for a considerable period of one year and 10 months and the trial is likely to take time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail on the ground that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner in a case involving offence under Section 302 IPC and allied Sections. It is contended that certain recoveries were effected at the instance of the petitioner pursuant to his disclosure statement during investigation and, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

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

It is not disputed that the petitioner was not named in the original FIR and was subsequently nominated on the basis of supplementary statement and the alleged extra-judicial confession before Dogar Singh. It is also a matter of record that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 19.12.2024 primarily noticing the said extra-judicial confessional statement.

However, it has now been brought to the notice of this Court that during the course of trial, the statements of material witnesses, including Dogar Singh, have been recorded and all of them have turned hostile. They have not supported the prosecution case and none of them has identified the pre