AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOELSUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL), J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Sectionfiled under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.70 dated 15.05.2025, registered for the offregistered for the offences punishable under Sectionences punishable under Sections 109, 103(1), 190, 191(3) & 118(1) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Satnampura, District Kapurthala.
The FIR in question pertains to murder of one Mohamed Wada Bala Yousif Ahmed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 17.05.2025. Learned counsel hasLearned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has urged that the FIR-complainant (who is also an eye witness), namely, Ahmed Mohamed Nour Ahmed Hussen has turned hostile qua the petitioner and, thus, the trial is not likely to culminate into conviction qua him. Learned counsel has further urged that four co-accused, including co-accused – Vikas Kumar have been afforded the concession of regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.07.2026 passed in SpecialSpecial LeaveLeave toto AppealAppeal (Crl.)(Crl.) No(s).5953/2026No(s).5953/2026. Learned counsel has further iterated that another co-accused, namely, Aditya Garg has been granted the concession of regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.03.2026 passed in CRMCRMCRM---MMM--42534253---202620262026. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of an affidavit dated 17.08.2026, which is already on record. The role attributed to the petitioner in the said status report reads thus:
““14. That the present case pertains to an occurrence in which one person sustained injuries and one person lost his life. As per the material recorded in the investigation proforma, one person suffered a sharp injury, whereas the other person died on account of an injury caused by a knife to the chest. The role attributed to the present petitioner, as reflected in the investigation record, is of assaulting the deceased with a danda.””
Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. It has been contended that, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 12.09.2026, in Court today, which is taken on record.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
The petitioner was arrested on 17.05.2025, whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan qua petitioner has been presented on 07.08.2025. Total 30 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is conceded case before this Court that only 01 has been examined till date.
At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in JavedJaved GulamGulam NabiNabi ShaikhShaikh vs.vs. StateState ofof Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus:
““18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
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 factum of the petitioner being in custody for more than 01 year and 03 months, the petitioner being a youngman aged 19 years with clean antecedents, four co-accused, including co-accused – Vikas Kumar, having been extended concession of regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and one accused (Aditya Garg) having been granted the concession of regular bail by co-ordinate Bench, the FIR-complainant (who is also an eye witnesses) having been turned hostile & the trial not likely to culminate into conviction qua the petitioner; this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant petition.
The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
As per custody certificate dated 12.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 03 months and 22 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s).
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of above, the present petition is allowedallowedallowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:
The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed off.