Marid @ Israel @ Mareed vs State Of Punjab

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 petitioner in case FIR No.41 dated 23.04.2025 under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, registered at Police Station Sadar Pathankot, District Pathankot.

The FIR in question pertains to the murder of one Fakkardin.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 18.02.2026. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prime prosecution witnesses, including the FIR-complainant, namely Yasin, Dilpari, Ayisha and Sheena, who are relatives of the deceased, have not supported the case of the prosecution and, thus, the trial is not likely to culminate in conviction. Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

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 08.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

The petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2026 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 18.04.2026. Total 23 prosecution witnesses have been cited but 7 have been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It is not in dispute before this Court that the prime prosecution witnesses, including the FIR-complainant Yasin, as also Dilpari, Ayisha and Sheena, have not supported the prosecution version. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the petitioner being a man with clean antecedents, and the prime prosecution witnesses having been examined and having not supported the case of the prosecution, this Court is inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. The rival contentions; including the weightage to be accorded to the testimony of hostile witnesses, shall be gone into during the course of 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 08.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 06 months and 20 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.

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 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:-

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 for 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.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.