Satnam Singh Alias Prince v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-26657-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.11.2025 (1) CRM-M-26657-2025 (O&M) JAGJIT SINGH V/S STATE OF PUNJAB (2) AMRITPAL SINGH V/S STATE OF PUNJAB (3) SATNAM SINGH ALIAS PRINCE V/S STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****
!
!
"
#
!$ !
!
%& ' (
!
) !
!
'* '(+,# - ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.
These petitions are disposed of by this common order as they arise out of same FIR.
2.
Prayer in the present petitions filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.62 dated 21.05.2024, registered under Section 346 IPC (later on challan filed under Sections 302, 34 and 201 IPC and 346 IPC deleted on 01.09.2024) at Police Station City Samana, District Patiala, Punjab.
3.
Learned counsel contends that the petitioners have been in custody for 1 year and more than 2 months. They allege false implication. There was a delay of 13 days in lodging the complaint that Manish Kumar @ Mahi was missing and 48 days thereafter, the FIR was registered. The complainant, who
CRM-M-26657-2025 (O&M) 2 appeared as PW-1, has turned hostile, so has his sister Kamaljit Kaur, appearing as PW-2, Sukhchain Singh PW-3, who is stated to have heard the accused talking with regarding to killing the missing person, as also PW-4 Jaskaran Singh, before whom the alleged extra judicial confession was made and who produced the accused before the police. Neither the scooter nor the dead body have been recovered. 20 more prosecution witnesses remain, though all material stand examined. The petitioners are not involved in any other case. 4.
The custody certificates dated 24.11.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioners are behind bars for 1 year, 2 months and 18 days.
5.
Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioners of having committed the murder of Manish by throwing him in the canal and there were certain call details between them and the deceased. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case and the petitioners not being involved in any other case. 6.
Heard.
7.
,% ,'
,.'
/ . !% / .0 ' . 0% '* -1 %-,!
''
'''. -'%, *,'-'
,'!/ ,2 ''*
8.
The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to
CRM-M-26657-2025 (O&M) 3 furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioners will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioners will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, they are accused, or for commission of which they are suspected of.
(v) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioners shall not in any manner misuse their liberty.
(vii) The petitioners shall furnish their address and mobile number by way of affidavit/s to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, they seek to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.
(viii) The petitioners shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioners.
9.
It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioners by this order.
10.
In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be
CRM-M-26657-2025 (O&M) 4 construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
11.
.-'
'
(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 26.11.2025 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No