Manoj Kumar vs State Of Punjab

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the petitioner to secure regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 12 dated 30.01.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section 105 of BNS 2023 (Section 3(5) of BNS deleted later on), at Police Station Kotwali, Nabha, District Patiala.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 22.03.2026. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that a bare perusal of the FIR in question would reflect that the deceased–Rahul was dropped back by the petitioner to his own place where he remained alive for sometime, but the FIR version does not disclose that the petitioner caused the death of deceased–Rahul. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further urged that the disclosure statement recorded by the police also reflects that the petitioner (herein) was consuming intoxicants alongwith the deceased and thereafter, since the condition of the deceased deteriorated, he was dropped back to his home, wherein he later succumbed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further urged that the co-accused namely Gurdhian Singh has been found innocent by the police, which further goes on to reflect the falsity of the case set up by the complainant-side. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further urged that the prime prosecution witness in the FIR in question is the brother of the deceased himself &, hence, the petitioner is not in a position to influence the said witness. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 3. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has further urged that the requisite viscera report is yet to be received &, thus, the petitioner ought not to be granted the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 20.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 4. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 5. The petitioner was arrested on 22.03.2026. Challan, upon culmination of investigation, was presented on 15.05.2026. Total 21 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is the conceded position before this Court that none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined. The rival contentions raised at the Bar and as to whether the offence under Section 105 of BNS (erstwhile Section 304 IPC) is made out, give rise to debatable issues; which shall 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.

Further, as per custody certificate dated 20.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner is stated to have suffered incarceration for a period of 5 months & 26 days and is stated to be involved in other cases/FIRs. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner 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 petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, and those which may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove, or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of the petitioner's bail.

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 of.