225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ranjit Singh @ Daddu ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Date of Decision: May 14, 2026 Date of Uploading: May 14, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.83 dated 06.06.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 506, 201, 120-B, 148, 149 of the IPC, 1860 (Section 201 of IPC added later on) (Sections 103(1), 351(2), 61(2), 191(3), 190 and 238 of the BNS, 2023), at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that complainant, namely, Raj Kumar, has alleged that on 03.06.2024, when the deceased (Sunny alias Landa – brother of the complainant) returned home after plying his auto-rickshaw, he appeared distressed and informed the complainant that all five accused persons, including the petitioner, had quarreled with him regarding the picking up of passengers. It is further alleged that on 05.06.2024, while the brother of the complainant was present in the street, the complainant heard a hue and cry and immediately reached the spot along with his nephew, Abhishek Kumar. Upon reaching there, the complainant allegedly witnessed that Harpreet Singh @ Happy, who was armed with an iron datar, inflicted blows using both the reverse and the sharp-edged side on the left arm of Sunny alias Landa. It is further alleged that Ranjit Singh alias Daddu (petitioner herein) inflicted datar blows on the right arm of the complainant; co-accused – Sahib Singh alias Saabi inflicted datar blows on the left leg of the deceased; co-accused – Akash alias Kashi inflicted datar blows on the right leg; and co-accused – Honey inflicted datar blows on the back and chest of the brother of the complainant, as a result of which he fell down on the street.

The complainant and his nephew, Abhishek Kumar, raised an alarm, whereupon the accused persons, including the present petitioner, fled from the spot in a car. The injured was immediately taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 06.06.2024. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that trial is procrastinating and out of total 28 cited prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined, whereas, 01 has been given up till date. Learned counsel has argued that one of the prime prosecution witness, namely, Abhishek Kumar has been given up by the Public Prosecutor concerned as having been won over and eye-witness/FIR- complainant already stands recorded as prosecution witness. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 02 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that in case, the petitioner is granted concession of regular bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice and also interfere/ intimidate the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 13.05.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 06.06.2024, whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan has been presented on 04.09.2024. Out of total 28 cited prosecution witnesses, 03 have been examined and 01 has been given up till date.

At this ju