(107)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-55392-2025 Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 AMANDEEP SINGH ALIAS BABBU ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate and Ms. Suman Rani, Advocate for the complainant.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.204 dated 11.12.2024 registered under Section 103 of BNS at Police Station Jhunir, District Mansa. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.2024, Jagsir Singh, son of the complainant Dhanna Singh, went to the fields in the evening and did not return. On 16.11.2024, the complainant found his son's mobile phone at some distance and later discovered his dead body in a well in his fields. Initially the death was considered accidental, but later suspicion was raised against the accused based on an alleged extra-judicial confession.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR but only in the supplementary statement of the complainant, wherein a suspicion has been raised against the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, an extra-judicial confession purportedly made by the petitioner before one Gurjiwan Singh has been used to inculpate the petitioner. Other than suspicion in the supplementary statement and the purported extra-judicial confession made before one Gurjiwan Singh, there is no other evidence available against the petitioner. As the petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2024 but only 02 of the 22 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

3. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has filed a reply dated 16.01.2026 by way of an affidavit, which is taken on record. He along with the counsel for the complainant, while referring to the said reply, contend that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. He is alleged to have strangled the deceased and thrown him into the well. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail as prayed for. It is however conceded that the petitioner is the first-time offender, is in custody since 13.12.2024 but only 02 of the 22 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is a first-time offender, in custody since 13.12.2024 but 02 of the 22 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.

6. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and petitioner-Amandeep Singh @ Babbu S/o Sadhu Singh is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

7. If the petitioner or his family members/associates make any attempt to contact/threaten/intimidate the witnesses in the present case, the State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted vide this order.

8. The petition stands disposed of.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)

09.03.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No