CRM-M/47069/2026 of JAGROOP SINGH ALIAS UP Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 27 August 2026

1. This petition has been filed under section 483 B.N.S.S. (earlier 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 88 dated 16.05.2026 registered at Police Station Bahawala District Fazilka under Section 105 BNS, 2023 (Section 304 of IPC) .

2. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant, who alleged that her 25-year-old son, Dharampreet @ Sunny, had earlier been addicted to drugs but had quit after treatment. On 08.05.2026, he left home and did not return. The next morning, his dead body was found lying beneath a kikar tree in a vacant plot in the village. After the post-mortem and cremation, the complainant allegedly learnt that co-accused Akhil Kumar @ Nikka had administered chitta to the deceased, which had been supplied by the present petitioner, Jagroop Singh @ UP. It was RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh alleged that both accused conspired to administer the drug, resulting in the deceased's death, and thereafter abandoned the body at the spot.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initial General Diary entry dated 09.05.2026, recorded on the statement of the deceased's father, merely reported a suspicious death and sought a post-mortem without naming any accused or alleging murder. The FIR was lodged seven days later on the basis of the complainant's subsequent statement, giving rise to material contradictions in the prosecution version. It is further contended that there is no eyewitness and the case rests solely on suspicion and the complainant's alleged inquiry. No medical or forensic evidence connects the petitioner with the alleged administration of the drug, and he has been falsely implicated due to local enmity. The petitioner is in custody since 03.06.2026 and prays for grant of regular bail.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent–State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 months and 22 days.

6. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

7. After hearing the rival contentions and considering that the petitioner has remained in custody for 2 months and 22 days, and that except RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh for the supplementary statement of the complainant there is no other material connecting him with the alleged offence, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by his further incarceration. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 27.08.2026

(H.S.GREWAL) renu

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh