Allowed¶27

Abhishek v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2026CRM-M/11455/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-11455-2026; Punjab and Haryana High Court; decided 09.04.2026; regular bail; Section 483 BNSS 2023; Sections 302 and 120-B IPC; FIR No.183 dated 16.09.2023; Police Station Canal Colony Bathinda; murder of Akash; prolonged detention; speedy trial; Article 21 Constitution of India; parity with co-accused Sachin and Maneet alias Money; challan presented; charges framed; 3 of 17 witnesses examined; bail bonds surety; Duty Magistrate CJM.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to petitioner Abhishek; to be released on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned, with the clarification that nothing stated shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ¶27

Abhishek Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner Abhishek is entitled to grant of regular bail in case FIR No.183 dated 16.09.2023 registered under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Canal Colony, Bathinda.

¶14

Court's answer

Further detention of the petitioner without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, given completion of investigation, presentation of challan, framing of charges, examination of only 03 of 17 prosecution witnesses, and the likelihood that trial will take a long time.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, the Court taking into account custody of more than 02 years 06 months and 20 days, non-identification of the petitioner by the complainant in the video played, and bail already granted to co-accused Sachin and Maneet alias Money.

¶27

Key takeaways

Release on bail is subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned.ratio¶29
Nothing stated in the order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail granted. Petition under Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Abhishek seeking regular bail in FIR No.183 dated 16.09.2023, Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Canal Colony, Bathinda (alleged murder of Akash, son of the complainant, in connivance with co-accused). Allowing the petition, the Court noted: custody exceeding 02 years 06 months 20 days; complainant did not identify the petitioner in the video played; co-accused Sachin and Maneet alias Money already granted bail vide orders dated 05.02.2026 and 26.09.2024; investigation complete, challan presented, charges framed; only 03 of 17 prosecution witnesses examined; trial likely to take long. Held that further detention without prospect of near-term conclusion of trial would violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Petitioner ordered released on bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM; order expressly not an expression of opinion on merits.

¶1

CRM-M-11455-2026 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Sr.No.226

¶4

CRM-M-11455-2026 Decided on : 09.04.2026

Abhishek

...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...... Respondent

**CORAM : �� *****

¶11

Present : Mr. Jupinder Pal Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. *******

¶13

��, J (ORAL)

¶14

Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.183 dated 16.09.2023, registered under Sections 302 and 120,B IPC, at Police Station Canal Colony, Bathinda, District Bathinda.

¶15

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner in connivance with co,accused murdered Akash (son of the complainant), due to some altercation between them.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and he has no concern with the said offence. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been wrongly named in the FIR. He further contends that the

¶17

PUNEET SHARMA 2026.04.10 17.37 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgment investigation done by the police is tainted and even the test identification

¶18

CRM-M-11455-2026 2

¶19

parade was not conducted by the police. Learned counsel contends that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner. Moreover, the learned counsel contends that the complainant did not even identify the petitioner in the video played. Further co,accused Sachin and Maneet alias Money have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court as well as by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 05.02.2026 and 26.09.2024 respectively. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 16.09.2023. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have been framed. Learned counsel further submits that out of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date. He further submits that trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶20

Learned State counsel has appeared and filed the status report as well as the custody certificate which are taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He has submitted that the petitioner actively participated in the crime and, therefore, does not deserve any concession from this Court.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 years 06 months and 20 days; the complainant did not identify the petitioner in the video played; the co,accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court as well as by a PUNEET SHARMA2026.04.10 17.37 Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 05.02.2026 and I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶22

CRM-M-11455-2026 3

¶23

26.09.2024; the investigation in the case is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been framed and out of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody. His further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of �� , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle ��  .

¶25

In this regard, reference is being made to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the following decision:, �!��"� #��$��%��&�� ''%��(�� #��(�)�%��'��+,&%��-��#�� .��!�%��&��',�%�"�(��#�� %��/,��',/%�0�!��#��$��%�� &+ 1��2�-��3��22��4�� '+��%�.(�� #��55��6�7��#��%��'

¶26

��,'�

¶27

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the PUNEET SHARMA 2026.04.10 17.37 petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶28

CRM-M-11455-2026 4

¶29

bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶30

��  mamta �� Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶31

PUNEET SHARMA 2026.04.10 17.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Abhishek v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Ahuja Vs State of Punjab

Mahavir Singh@Manni Vs State of Punjab

Avishek Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others

Madhuri Devi Vs State of Punjab and Others

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Akash Vs State of Ut Chandigarh