IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 21.04.2026 Barfat Ansari ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ekompal Sagoo, AAG, Punjab.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.140 dated 29.09.2021 registered under Section 302 of IPC (Sections 34 and 201 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Daba, District Ludhiana.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner along with other accused murdered one Ram Lagan (brother of the complainant).

Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the death of the deceased. She argued that the petitioner was roped in the FIR only on the basis of suspicion without any concrete evidence. She further argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific role is attributed to the present petitioner and the entire story is based on hearsay. She further submitted that the material witness i.e. the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. To lend force to her contention, she has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of complainant/Bechan (brother of the deceased) (Annexure R-6), made before the trial Court wherein he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. Further, co-accused Ramesh has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.02.2026. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case and no recovery is to be effected from him. The petitioner is in custody since 30.09.2021. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed. She further submitted that there are total 20 prosecution witnesses and out of them, only 06 have been examined till date and as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner and status report in the matter, which are taken on record and while referring to the status report, he has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. However, he has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is a first time offender as he is not involved in any other case.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 04 years and 06 months; investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges framed; out of 20 witnesses, only 06 have been examined till date; the complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial; which is proceeding at snail’s pace, and will take a long time to conclude. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is