Mohd. Sunain Ansari v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Mohd. Sunain Ansari ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 Date of Uploading: 07.04.2026

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. J.S. Jaidka, Advocate and Ms. Garima Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, 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 bearing FIR No.27 dated 14.04.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149, 120-B of the IPC, 1860 (Sections 326 and 302 of IPC added later on), at Police Station Daresi, District Ludhiana.

2.

The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, namely, Neelam Rani, mother of the deceased Ajay Kumar, stated that on 13.04.2024, she along with her son had gone towards Basti Jodhewal for some domestic work. Her son, Ajay Kumar, stopped their Activa scooter near

Jodhewal Chowk on the roadside and proceeded to Basti Mani Singh, Gali No.2, to the house of co-accused, namely, Mohd. Sunain Ansari, to collect some money. When Ajay Kumar did not return for about half an hour, the complainant went in search of him. Upon reaching near Gali No.3, she saw her son lying on the ground while 4-5 persons armed with kirpans and datars were inflicting injuries upon him. On her raising an alarm, the accused fled from the spot along with their respective weapons. She immediately shifted her son to CMC Hospital for treatment. However, during the course of treatment, Ajay Kumar succumbed to his injuries. Consequently, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added on 27.04.2024.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2024. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that prime prosecution witness i.e. FIR-complainant (Neelam Rani) has turned hostile & thus the trial is not likely to culminate into conviction. Learned counsel has further submitted that two other co-accused namely Rahul Kumar @ Gora and Vishal Kumar have been afforded the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2026 passed in CRM-M-61521-2024 and CRM-M-62019-2024, respectively. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year and 3 months & is not involved in any other case. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. He seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 06.04.2026, which is taken on record.

5.

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

6.

The petitioner was arrested on 13.12.2024, whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner was presented on 23.01.2025. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and out of which only has been examined till date. It is not in dispute that the prime prosecution witness i.e. FIR-complainant namely PW-Neelam Rani, mother of the victim, has turned hostile. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties including the factum of the weightage required to be attached to the testimony of the hostile witness shall be gone into during the course of the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioners absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1.

As per custody certificate dated 06.04.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 03 months and 21 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s). Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, 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:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8.

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 cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

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

11.

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 07.04.2026 Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No