Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay v. State Of Punjab
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Ajay Kumar @ Ajay ..... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent Manpreet Singh @ Monu .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent Date of decision: 11.12.2025 CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-44298-2025.
Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-50272-2025.
Ms. Simran Goria, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.
By this order, I dispose of the above mentioned two petitions arising out of the same FIR.
2.
Both the petitions have been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR No.83, dated 06.07.2024, under Sections 105, 238 of BNS, registered at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar Rural.
-23.
Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Rajinder Kumar son of Sham Lal. It was alleged that on 04.07.2024, at about 12'o clock, his son, namely, Balram (deceased) left the house without saying anything. Thereafter on 05.07.2024, his son came home for few minutes and on asking of the complainant, his son replied that he was going to meet his friends, namely, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay (petitioner in CRM-M44298-2025) and Manpreet Singh @ Monu (petitioner in CRM-M-502722025), however, he did not return home. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that his son was lying unconscious at Dana Mandi, Bhogpur. On reaching there, the complainant saw that froth was coming out from the mouth of his son. He shifted his son to the Hospital where he was declared dead.
It was alleged that his son entered into an argument over some dispute with his friends, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay (petitioner in CRM-M44298-2025) and Manpreet Singh @ Monu (petitioner in CRM-M-502722025) and hence, he murdered. The request was made to take legal action against the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The petitioners were arrested on 06.07.2024 and 20.07.2024. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. Both the petitioners approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar praying for the grant of bail.
However after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar declined the bail applications filed by both the petitioners vide orders dated 13.01.
-306.08.2025, respectively. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court by way of filing the present petitions praying for the grant of regular bail.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have submitted that the only allegation made against the petitioners is to the effect that the son of complainant had left the house saying that he is going to meet the petitioners, however the same is not a credible evidence. They have submitted that the petitioners have been roped in the present case only because they had an acquaintance with the deceased. They have submitted that the cause of death is over dose and the petitioners had no role in administering the same. 5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner, namely, Manpreet Singh @ Monu (in CRM-M-502722025) is involved in 03 other cases, however he is on bail in those cases. 6.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners are behind bars since the date of their arrest, however there is no material progress in the trial. They have submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioners deserve to be granted bail. 7.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State however has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsels for the petitioners. She has submitted that the deceased was in the company of petitioners. She has submitted that it is the petitioners, who after the death of son of complainant, had abandoned him at a far place. She has submitted that the ocular version is medically corroborated. She, on
-4instructions, has submitted that out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far. She has produced custody certificates of both the petitioners today in the Court, which are taken on record.
8.
The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 9.
On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioners have been alleged to have administered the drug to the deceased. However the trial is pending, thus, this Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Custody certificates produced would show that the petitioner, namely, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay (in CRM-M-44298-2025) has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 05 months and 03 days whereas petitioner, namely, Manpreet Singh @ Monu (in CRM-M-50272-2025) has suffered an incarceration of 01 year, 04 months and 20 days as on 10.12.2025. It further reflects that the petitioners are not involved in any other case. Only 01 witness has been examined, out of total 13 prosecution witnesses. 9.
The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court.
10.
Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsels for the petitioners succeed in making out a case for the grant of bail. 11.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and the petitioners, namely, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay and Manpreet Singh @ Monu
-5are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 11.12.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No