IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

222 CRM-M-7203-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.05.2025 Jagmeet Singh @ Meeta ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. V.S. Mand, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.41 dated 18.04.2024 registered under Sections 302, 34 IPC at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. As per the allegations in the FIR, Kirandeep Kaur, a resident of Fidoklan, gave a statement to the police on 18.04.2024, alleging that her brother Jaskaur Singh alias Soni, who was married to Kuldeep Kaur, was murdered by Kuldeep Kaur and her friend Jagmeet Singh, a resident of Dhippawali. Kirandeep Kaur stated that Jaskaur Singh had divorced his first wife and married Kuldeep Kaur about 12 years ago, but their relationship was strained, and they had no children. According to Kirandeep Kaur, her brother had repeatedly expressed concerns about Kuldeep Kaur's affair with Jagmeet Singh and even feared they might kill him. A few days before his death, Jaskaur Singh allegedly told her that Kuldeep Kaur and Jagmeet might harm him. After the death of Jaskaur Singh, Kirandeep Kaur along with her husband made inquiries and came to know that her brother Jaskaur Singh was murdered by her sister-in-law Kuldeep Kaur and her friend Jagmeet Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Initially, after the death of deceased Jaskaur Singh, no apprehension or suspicion was there as the deceased had not suffered any injuries and proceedings under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., were completed and thereafter, after one day, the FIR (supra) was registered. Further as per the case set up by the prosecution, the complainant herself has admitted that her deceased brother was a drug addict. The post-mortem report does not indicate that the deceased has suffered any injury which could remotely suggest that it is a homicidal death. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the chemical examiner report (Annexure P-2) and submits that Morphine was detected in the internal organs of the deceased and as such, there is no conclusive or concrete evidence that the deceased has not died a natural death and further, there is no opinion given by any doctor that the deceased had died due to drug overdose. The petitioner has suffered the incarceration of more than 01 year.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are total 25 prosecution witnesses cited in the list of witnesses, out of which, 01 PW has been examined till date and the trial is likely to take long time in conclusion.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate today in the Court which is taken on record and he opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has forcibly administered Morphine to the deceased and he had died on account of drug overdose and the petitioner is involved in other cases also, however, he could not controvert the fact that there is no clear medical opinion available on record confirming that the death of deceased was caused by a drug overdose given by the petitioner.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars from the last more than 01 year. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. Charges were framed and trial of the case has not made much progress. Out of 25 prosecution witnesses, 01 PW has been examined so far.

7. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI”, (