CRM-M/6445/2026 of LAVENESH MEHTA ALIAS LAVNISH MEHTA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 3 September 2026

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 02.09.2026

2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 03.09.2026

3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 03.09.2026

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof Not applicable. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG Punjab. SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL

, J.

1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in case vide FIR No.189 dated 30.08.2024, under Sections 103(1), 351, 61(2), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Kotwali, Patiala. This is the first petition seeking regular bail.

2. Complainant Chand who was working with Swiggy alleged that on 29.08.2024 at about 11:45 a.m., he visited Shahi Market, Patiala, to have food and drinks with his friends. Thereafter, he was standing with his friend near liquor vend, when Lavenesh Mehta arrived and started abusing him. When he and his friend tried to stop him, a verbal altercation ensued, during REEMA SAINI

which Lavenesh Mehta inflicted injuries to him with a knife, on his back and later on his stomach. When he raised alarm, Lavenesh Mehta fled from the spot with knife while threatening him with death. Thereafter, complainant's friend informed his father, who shifted him to the hospital for treatment. Lavenesh Mehta had an ongoing dispute with his friend Billa on which account he was on enemical terms with them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in custody w.e.f. 17.09.2024. Other three accused were not even arrested by the police and petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail submitting that injured who was brutally attacked by the petitioner with knife on back and stomach, over a minor issue, succumbed to the injuries, consequent to which offence under Section 302 IPC was added. Statement of complainant was thus to be treated as his dying declaration. Three other accused were found innocent during investigation and challan was presented only against the petitioner. Out of 20 witnesses, 4 had been examined. Weapon of offence was recovered from possession of petitioner. Considering the serious and grave nature of allegations, he did not deserve the concession of bail.

5. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) : 2004(7) SCC 528, the Apex Court held as under: xxxx The Court also in specific terms held that :

"the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds REEMA SAINI

sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail."

6. In Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, 2005(1) Apex Criminal 319 : 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 712 (SC) : 2005(3) SCC 143, this Court observed : "The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in the heinous crime..... It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation."

7. Thus, judicial discretion in matters of bail must be exercised cautiously, based upon relevant considerations. Ordinarily in cases of long detention, courts lean favorably towards the accused but there is no straight jacket formula that an accused would be automatically entitled to bail on the on the ground of prolonged incarceration, discretion has to be exercised considering the intrinsic merits of the case and gravity of charge.

8. Allegations against the petitioner are specific, grave and serious. He is alleged to have committed murder of Chand by inflicting knife injuries on his back and abdomen. Recovery of weapon of offence is alleged REEMA SAINI

to have been effected from his possession. As per post-mortem report, cause of death is stab injuries, ante-mortem in nature. Considering the gravity of the charge, material collected by prosecution against the petitioner, prima- facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the quantum of punishment conviction may entail, it is not a fit case to release the petitioner on regular bail despite the period of incarceration.

9. Dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)

JUDGE

reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

REEMA SAINI