221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.05.2026 GURMAIL SINGH @ RAJU ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. R.K.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner.

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)/439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.76 dated 04.07.2025 registered under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS (later on added Section 61, 190, 238 of BNS) (Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 149, 201 IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar Rural.

2. The case of the prosecution is that FIR has been lodged on the basis of statement made by complainant Sarabjit Kaur that three unknown persons had murdered his son Jugraj Singh by firing upon him, thereafter, a supplementary statement was got recorded on 05.07.2025, wherein the complainant stated that Gurwinder Singh Bholla and Navtej Singh @ Tej had shot her son dead. Thereafter, again on 07.07.2025 another supplementary statement was recorded by the complainant alleging that petitioner along with Sukhraj Kaur, Sukhwinder Kaur and Harpreet Singh had conspired to kill her son. Thereafter, on 16.07.2025, she again suffered a statement to the effect that one Karan Pathak and Jatin along with some unknown persons had killed her son.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Moreover, Karan Pathak who was a gangster has already been killed in an encounter by the Punjab Police on 17.01.2026. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 09 months and 25 days. He, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, D.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 09 months and 25 days and out of total 28 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far.

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

7. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the complainant has come up with three different versions, however, none of them is supported by any corroborative evidence; the petitioner is in custody for the last 09 months and 25 days; challan has been presented and charges are yet to be framed; out of total 28 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far; the conclusion of trial is likely to take time and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

Moreover, ‘bail is rule and jail is exception’.

9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9. It is clarified that while on bail so granted through the instant order the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL)

11.05.2026 JUDGE

Janki