Kuldeep Singh @ Keepu v. State Of Punjab


   
    
 



 ! "#$%$ &' ( ) 

*+ , - *

 $ $ &.

%

/,, ,  

%0 &"&

% 
 '  1+  ,
 /  , 2  

      

    !"



 # 

$%&'

/  , 23 

.

!!   !

   & 

()* +  ,  & ! -*     & '     

!' ./  -
01 -(

-(& 

 !"
-**) * 2" +  , ,, -* 3

!

 !"*--
 *( /3
)0-"

14  $


4)2   " !

     5& $!



! 

 The present case was registered on the basis of the statement of the complainant, Jagtar Singh, who alleged that on 02.11.2024, his son Harpreet Singh was taken on a motorcycle by Kuldeep Singh and did not return thereafter. Subsequently, the dead body of Harpreet Singh was recovered from a room in the park situated at Village Sahnewali. It is further alleged that the cause of death of Harpreet Singh was the administration of a drug overdose by Kuldeep Singh in concert with his brother. The motive attributed to the incident is that an earlier altercation had taken place between Harpreet Singh and Sandeep Singh @ Kalu, pursuant whereto Sandeep Singh @ Kalu, along with his brother, conspired to commit the murder of Harpreet Singh. During the course of interrogation of accused Gurjeewan Singh, it was revealed that the drugs in question had been supplied by accused Chamkaur Singh @ Channa. On the basis of this disclosure, the applicant/accused came to be nominated in the present case.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Chamkaur Singh alias Channa has been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 23.09.2025 passed by this Court in CRM-M-36218-2025 and another co-accused Gurjiwan Singh has been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 12.12.2025 passed by this Court in CRM-M-59516-2025. He contends that role attributed to the petitioner would be at par with the aforesaid co-accused who have been granted the concession of regular bail.

State counsel does not dispute that the case of the petitioner would be at par with the co-accused who have been granted the concession of regular bail .

* Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that similarly placed co-accused have been granted the concession of regular bail, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.

0.$4 (3 

/  , 2 .

. .