← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/15279/2026allowed

Uday Khan v. State Of Punjab

2026-03-30Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 HARJIT SINGH S/O INDERJIT SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CRM-M-65905-2025 RAJINDER SINGH @ RAJU ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CRM-M-15279-2026 UDAY KHAN ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner(s). (in CRM-M-54124-2025 and CRM-M-65905-2025) Mr. Asutosh Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Yogesh Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CRM-M-15279-2026) Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

**** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petitions under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.113 dated 13.06.2024 registered under Sections 302, 148 and 149 of IPC (Sections 201 and 452 IPC added later on) at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala.

2.

Learned counsels for the petitioners contend that all the material witnesses have turned hostile. They have not even identified any of the accused in the CCTV footage of the alleged place of occurrence. As the petitioners are in custody since 14.06.2024 but only 04 of the 29 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon, and therefore, they be granted the concession of regular bail.

3.

The learned counsel for the State has filed custody certificates and the same are taken on record. He contends that the CCTV footage of the area around the place of occurrence would show that while Harjit Singh and Rajinder Singh @ Raju were armed with bottle crates, Uday Khan was armed with bricks. The nature of the allegations does not entitle them to the concession of bail. He however concedes that the petitioners are in custody since 14.06.2024 and that 04 material witnesses have been examined all of whom have turned hostile.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5.

Admittedly, when the material witnesses including the bua of the deceased-Kuldeep Kaur were examined, they have not supported the prosecution case. They have not identified the petitioners even when the CCTV footage was put to them during cross-examination. Whether the remaining evidence available against the petitioners is sufficient to establish their culpability shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the trial. The petitioners are in custody since 14.06.2024 but only 04 of the 29 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present

case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioners is not required. 6.

Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners, namely, Harjit Singh son of Inderjit Singh, Rajinder Singh @ Raju son of Rajwinder Singh and Uday Khan son of Shehbaz Khan are ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 7.

The petitions stand disposed of.

8.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 30.03.2026 kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No