CRM-M/43568/2026 of PAVITER JOT SINGH ALIAS PAVITER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 10 September 2026

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.28, dated 22.04.2024, registered under Sections 302, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 29 of the NDPS Act (offences under Sections 201, 202 and 34 of IPC were added lateron) at Police Station Qadian, District Gurdaspur.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by complainant – Jeeta, alleging therein that on 21.04.2024, he along with his wife Paramjit Kaur was present in his house when the petitioner accompanied by co-accused Vishal, Sumit, Manjit @ Jajji and Amritpal Singh @ Ammy reached there. They called his son Sahil and took him along with them. His son did not return home during the night time. The complainant started making search for him and found his dead body lying near Batala road Qadian on 24.04.2024. There were injury marks on the dead body. By alleging that the petitioner and co-accused had killed his son by administering some poisonous substance and by inflicting injuries, he prayed for taking action in the matter.

3. During investigation, the complainant recorded his supplementary statement on 29.04.2024. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Accused Vishal @ Khuda was arrested and has since been extended benefit of bail. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide order dated 07.05.2024.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye witness to the factum of giving any contraband to the victim by him. As per the supplementary statement of the complainant, the petitioner along with co-accused Amritpal Singh and Manjit had given heroin to co-accused Vishal and Sumit and they had given it further to the victim. These allegations themselves show that he had no hand in giving any contraband to the victim. The material witnesses including the complainant have been examined in the trial of the co-accused and they have not supported the prosecution version at all and have not implicated them in commission of subject offences. The allegations do not make out any case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petitioner deserves to be extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand has submitted that the complainant does not know or identify the petitioner. He does not attribute any role to the petitioner and he has no objection if the petition is allowed.

7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The petitioner is alleged to have supplied some contraband to the co-accused, who in turn had allegedly administered the same to the victim, who died due to consumption of the same. It is only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion as to the involvement of the petitioner in commission of subject offences can be drawn. Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner and the circumstances peculiar to the case, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. It is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. As such, a case is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to the condition that the petitioner shall surrender before the

Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer within a period of 15 days from today and shall join the investigation. He shall also join investigation as and when required subsequently. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating/Arresting Officer shall release the petitioner on interim bail on furnishing personal/surety bonds to his/her satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNS.

9. It is, however, clarified that nothing stated above shall have any bearing on merits of the case.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (MANISHA BATRA) 10.09.2026

JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No