SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.91 dated 11.5.2025 under Sections 109 , 115(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ( Sections 103 , 61(2) of BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

2. The FIR in question pertains to murder of one Davinder Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 14.5.2025. Learned counsel has further urged that the deceased was the father of the petitioner(herein) but there was ongoing dispute regarding the agricultural fields, on account of which the petitioner is stated to have given a single blow with a spade (an instrument used in agriculture commonly found in fields/rural household) to the deceased. Learned counsel has further urged that the genesis of the dispute is agricultural related dispute and from the factual milieu of the case in hand, the case is not one of Section 103 of BNS (erstwhile Section 302 of IPC) but at the most of Section 105 of BNS (erstwhile Section 304 of IPC). Learned counsel has further urged that the deceased was initially admitted to Government Hospital but, on LAMA (Leave Against Medical Advice), was shifted to a private hospital wherein he is alleged to succumb the injury given by the petitioner. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is in custody for about 01 year and 4 months and is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 16.9.2026 in Court, 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 14.5.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was presented on 9.8.2025. Total 29 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is conceded case before this Court that only 01 witness has been examined till date. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another , decided on 03.07.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:-

“19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly. howsoever stringent the penal law may be.

21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the petitioner having been attributed one single blow upon the body of the deceased with spade, the petitioner being in custody for more than 01 year and 3 months, the petitioner being a man with clean antecedents & the trial is not likely to culminate in near future; this Court is inclined to afford the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep i