AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
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 petitioners in case FIR No.184 dated 06.10.2025, registered under Sections 103, 3(5), 346 of BNS, 2023 (Section 302, 34, 489 of Indian Penal Code, 1860), at Police Station Badhni Kalan, District Moga.
The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioners) is as follows:-
“The statement of Sukhchain Khan s/o Nazar Khan s/o Fateh Deen r/o Ward No.2, Sallo Patti, Badhni Kalan, District Moga stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and doing the labour work. We are three brother and 1 sister. My younger brother Lally Khan aged about 40 years who is unmarried. On 04.10.2025, I was present in my house then at about 10:30 am, someone told me that near the dear of Baba Game Shah, three unknown persons came on motorcycle and caused injuries to my brother Lally Khan and threw him near the shop of Ashok. On that me and my brother Raju Khan reached near the shop of Ahoka where my brother Lally Khan was in injured condition who has received injuries on legs and arms. We arranged the vehicle and got admitted our brother Lally khan to Civil Hospital, Moga and after giving him first aid, the doctor referred my brother to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot and we got admitted our brother Lally Khan at Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, where during the treatment, my brother Lally Khan died on 05.10.2025 at about 06:30 pm. My brother Lally Khan died due to the injuries caused by three unknown persons. therefore, the appropriate legal action may kindly be taken against three unknown persons. The statement has been recorded to you heard and is correct. Sd/- Sukhchain Khan, statement corroborated by Raju Khan, verified by SI Gurtej Singh 160/Moga.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioner No.1 & petitioner No.2 are in custody since 13.10.2025 and 25.10.2025, respectively. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further urged that the case in hand is not on eye witness account. Learned counsel has further urged that out of 7 prosecution witnesses examined till date, 5 have turned hostile, which include FIR-complainant (Sukhchain Khan) as also another brother of deceased namely PW-Raju Khan. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further argued that trial is not likely to culminate into conviction. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against petitioners are serious in nature and thus, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificates dated 16.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
The petitioner No.1 & petitioner No.2 were arrested on 13.10.2025 and 25.10.2025, whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 03.01.2026. Total 27 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which 7 have been examined till date. It is not in dispute before this Court that FIR-complainant (Sukhchain Khan) and another brother of deceased namely PW-Raju Khan have turned hostile. The rival contention; including the weightage required to be attached to the testimony of the hostile witnesses; shall be gone into 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 petitioners absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
As per custody certificate dated 16.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 have already suffered incarceration for a period of 11 months and 10 months & 21 days, respectively & are stated to be involved in other FIRs/cases. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioners in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioners as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their 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 petitioners shall remain bound by the following conditions:-
The petitioners shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
The petitioners shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
The petitioners shall not absent themselves on any date before the trial.
The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.
The petitioner shall deposit their passport, if any, with the trial Court.
The petitioners shall give their cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change their cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
The petitioners 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 petitioners.
Ordered accordingly.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.