Pawan Kumar Alias Labha v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 PAWAN KUMAR @ LABHA ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Ms. Samanpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No. 162 dated 27.11.2020 under Sections 302, 34 of IPC and under Sections 25,27,54,59 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Verka, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the blind murder had taken place and a body of one Jatinder Kumar was recovered on 27.11.2020 at 7:00 A.M near his fields. During investigation on the statement of Varinder Sahai, Pawan Kumar @ Labha and Palwinder Singh were nominated as accused. The accused Palwinder Singh was arrested who suffered disclosure statement that in order to snatch the amount from deceased, accused Pawan Kumar @ Labha fired with pistol on deceased Jatinder Kumar due to which he died at the spot.

-23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence. The petitioner has been nominated only on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Palwinder Singh @ Billa. She further submits that co-accused Palwinder Singh @ Billa has been acquitted by the ld. Trial Court vide order dated 15.01.2024. However, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender and was arrested on 09.08.2023 and is in custody for the last 02 years and 05 days as of today.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in the Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years and 05 days. On asking, he further submits that only 02 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that only 02 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

-38.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the applicant is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 18.08.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No