CRM-M/35642/2026 of AJANDEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 9 July 2026

230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.35642 of 2026 Date of Decision:-09.07.2026

Ajandeep Singh …..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Raman Mohinder Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0020 dated 03.03.2026 registered under Sections 105, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur.

2. Custody certificate filed by learned State counsel in Court is taken on record.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 02.03.2026, one of the sons of the complainant (Harmaid Singh) namely Harmolak Singh had gone to the house of one Lovepreet Singh for a birthday party. When the party was going on, Lovepreet Singh went to the house of Harmolak Singh to take Chapatis and upon the complainant having enquired as to who all YAG DUTT

CRM-M No.35642 of 2026 -2-

were there at the birthday party, Lovepreet Singh disclosed that the present petitioner (Ajandeep Singh) was also there and all friends were consuming liquor. The complainant told Lovepreet Singh that in case Harmolak Singh consumed excess liquor, he be asked to sleep in the house of Lovepreet Singh only. However, Harmolak Singh did not come back home and on the next day in the morning, i.e. on 03.03.2026, Harmolak Singh expired. It was alleged by the complainant that the petitioner and other persons had been negligent and had they taken Harmolak Singh to a medical centre in time, he may have been saved. A conspiracy was also alleged pursuant to which the petitioner and Lovepreet Singh were arrested on 03.03.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of suspicion and even as per the report of the viscera, only ethyl alcohol was found. He submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 4 months; investigation has been completed; final report has been submitted on 02.06.2026, but charges have yet not been framed. He submits that under the circumstances, trial will still take a sufficiently long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application stating that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is serious in nature.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. Concededly, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 4 months, having been named as an accused on the basis of suspicion and YAG DUTT

CRM-M No.35642 of 2026 -3-

with vague allegations. After completion of investigation, final report has been submitted on 02.06.2026, but charges have yet not been framed till date. In the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 09, 2026

JUDGE Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT