IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 CRM-M-10621-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 09.03.2026 Karan Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent [

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Karandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

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.9 dated 25.01.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Lovepreet Singh @Labhu’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that he was unmarried and used to stay with his widowed mother, whereas his siblings were residing separately. According to complainant, on 24.01.2024 at about 07:30 pm he left home for his village and returned home at about 10:00 pm. As per complainant, when he returned home, his mother was not present in the house and that on 25.01.2024, at about 11:00 am, he came to know that the dead body of a lady was lying in a canal and when he went there, he found that the dead body was of his mother.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned information, formal FIR of this case was lodged against unknown persons and the investigation was taken up. As per prosecution during the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner and other co-accused were involved in the commission of crime. According to prosecution, on the basis of supplementary statement of Gurmeet Singh (brother of complainant), petitioner was nominated as an accused in the present case

4. 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 by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that he has clean antecedents. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year and eleven months. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of twenty one prosecution witnesses, only three have been examined, so far. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of above, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail.

8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case although the complainant has been examined, but the independent witness, namely Jagmeet Kaur, who is the witness of last seen event, is yet to be examined and therefore, till the examination of above-named witness, it shall not be appropriate to release the petitioner on bail, as the petitioner may influence the witnesses.

9. The record has been perused carefully.

10. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:-

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year and eleven months;

ii) that the only motive attributed to the petitioner, as contained in the status report submitted by the State, was that co-accused Manfakir Singh @Mani was having objections with regard to visit of Yogi s/o Charan Singh to the house of deceased. However, no specific motive has been attributed to the petitioner;

iii) that initially in the FIR name of any accused was not mentioned, and there is no eye-witness account of the incident. The case is based upon circumstantial evidence, i.e. the evidence with regard to last seen event;

iv) that the trial i