Bablu @ Dinesh v. State Of Punjab



  


      

  
 

!"#"

$% #

!

& '(     

           
%  )* +, +
 

+   

  !"#$ 

"%!""&!  '   '
 ((( 

+  (  -*.% )       *    $ +,-   *'. / /  !
0
-1 2'34 /

.. .  

$

.56'7 8,0
0
-.

 $ -0+ $ -+69  $ :   !

 $:   
 As per the prosecution case, the aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement got recorded by the complainant Jaspal Kaur alleging therein that her younger   

.  !.   ** / .   % %$      /

.  % $

    ; $     *    % On 17.05.2023 at about 12:00 PM, accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Bunty who was also a drug addict came to her house and took her son Monu with him.

  She alleged that her son did not come back home on that night. She made calls to Sukhwinder Singh and his friends but no satisfactory answer was given. In the next morning, she came to know that the dead body of her son was lying at vacant plot near bypass. She alleged that present petitioner along with the co-accused had enticed her son to take some intoxicant on consuming which he had died and further alleged that they had caused the death of her son. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 30.08.2023. The co-accused were also arrested. Investigation has since been completed and the challan stands presented.

3.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. He is in custody since long. The co-accused Akash, Rajesh Kumar, Sukhwinder Singh and Paras Sahni have since been extended benefit of regular bail. The trial is likely to take time. He does not have any criminal antecedents. There are no chances of his absconding or intimidating the witnesses. The deceased was a drug addict and had died due to overdose of drug. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4.

Status report has been filed by respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 5.

6# $     $ $   . #.  .$

/ $ * < )  . $;$$  .# $ # $ %   . $*%/

. % $  %%

= $

.  $"$;$$ #

$ =    9 $     /*/ %

$# $.#  %)# $ %  # % 

  )  $% 

         *;

      $ %   %

 

= $  * )   %  . $> 

##% 

$ %

$$

 $  . $  .  6 #    $  %#!   %

.%/ *$%%  % $!6               $       



.   ? *       $ 9   $  .

? * .

$ $  7 6 $  # %

#  $   =  

 % $ , 

$%

   !  

.

 $    *  

 $  

0

+  1

 #

!

& '(