CRA-S-727-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 CRA-S-727-2026 Decided on : 07.07.2026 BAJEET SINGH @ BOBBY .....PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER ......RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab. ***** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. Present petition has been filed by the appellant, seeking grant of regular bail, in case, FIR No.0002, dated 03.01.2024, under Sections 302, 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act was added later on, at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, as per the allegations mentioned in the FIR registered at the instance of the complainant—Rajvir Kaur alias Raj, wife of Jasveer Singh (deceased in the present case), on the date of the incident at about 6:00–6:30 P.M., complainant was in the company of her husband when, on his signal, an unknown motorcyclist stopped. Thereafter, both the complainant and her husband sat on the rear seat of the motorcycle and proceeded to a tent. Subsequently, complainant’s husband (deceased) and the unknown motorcyclist consumed liquor, after which the motorcyclist left. Complainant and her husband then went to sleep. It is further alleged that at about 10:00 P.M., two unknown persons came near the tent, one of whom had a muffled face and was armed with an iron rod, while the other was empty-handed. They raised

PRIYANKA 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and Page 1 of 4 Pages integrity of this document CRA-S-727-2026 an alarm and called the complainant’s husband out of the tent. The person armed with the iron rod inflicted a blow on Jasveer Singh’s neck, causing him to fall. Two further blows were inflicted—one on his forehead and the other on his head, resulting in his death at the spot due to the injuries sustained. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that complainant, Rajvir Kaur alias Raj, is the sole eye-witness in the present case. However, she has resiled from her earlier version while deposing before the Court. In the absence of any substantive evidence to support the prosecution case, and considering that appellant is in custody for a period of approximately two years, he is entitled to be released on regular bail in the present case. 4. On advance notice and in response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel submits that present appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Learned State counsel produces the custody certificate dated 05.07.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. As per the custody certificate, in the present case, appellant has already undergone 2 years, 05months and 29 days period inside jail.

5. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available before it. 6. Undoubtedly, as per the status report dated 29.01.2026 filed in bail petition of co-accused Gurjeet Singh in CRA-S-3891-2025 (Annexure P-6), complainant, Rajvir Kaur alias Raj, who is the sole eye-witness to the PRIYANKA occurrence, has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is evident from 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and Page 2 of 4 Pages integrity of this document CRA-S-727-2026 her statement (PW-1), appended with the present petition as well as with status report filed by learned State counsel, in which she has categorically stated during her examination-in-chief that she does not know who murdered her husband, as the assailants had muffled faces and it was a dark night, more so her statement was never recorded by the police. Upon being declared hostile, her cross-examination was conducted. During such cross-examination, in response to a specific query put by learned counsel for the accused, she stated that “I have never seen the accused person before today. Today I have seen the accused for the first time in the Court”

7. At this stage, this Court refrains from making any observations on the merits of complainant’s testimony or her turning hostile, as final adjudication of the case shall be undertaken by the trial Court after appreciation of the entire evidence on record. It is also well settled that mere fact of a witness turning hostile may not, by itself, be sufficient to infer the innocence of the accused. However, for the limited purpose of considering the prayer for bail, it is significant that the sole eye-witness has, as of now, not supported the prosecution case. Moreover, appellant has remained in custody for a period of approximately two years and twenty-three days, and as per the record, around 14 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined also co-accused Gurjeet Singh has already been granted bail in CRA-S-3891-2025 vide order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-6). 8. Therefore, in view of the totality of the circumstances, nature of the allegations levelled against the appellant, and the factors noticed here above, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of bail to the PRIYANKA appellant in the present case. 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and Page 3 of 4 Pages integrity of this document CRA-S-727-2026 Consequently, prayer made in the present appeal is allowed.

Appellant is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 9. Needless to observe that the appellant shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 10. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 11. Appeal stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 07.07.2026 pry Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO PRIYANKA 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and Page 4 of 4 Pages integrity of this document

CRA-S-727-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 CRA-S-727-2026 Decided on : 07.07.2026 BAJEET SINGH @ BOBBY .....PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER ......RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab. ***** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. Present petition has been filed by the appellant, seeking grant of regular bail, in case, FIR No.0002, dated 03.01.2024, under Sections 302, 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act was added later on, at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, as per the allegations mentioned in the FIR registered at the instance of the complainant—Rajvir Kaur alias Raj, wife of Jasveer Singh (deceased in the present case), on the date of the incident at about 6:00–6:30 P.M., complainant was in the company of her husband when, on his signal, an unknown motorcyclist stopped. Thereafter, both the complainant and her husband sat on the rear seat of the motorcycle and proceeded to a tent. Subsequently, complainant’s husband (deceased) and the unknown motorcyclist consumed liquor, after which the motorcyclist left. Complainant and her husband then went to sleep. It is further alleged that at about 10:00 P.M., two unknown persons came near the tent, one of whom had a muffled face and was armed with an iron rod, while the other was empty-handed. They raised

PRIYANKA 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and Page 1 of 4 Pages integrity of this document CRA-S-727-2026 an alarm and called the complainant’s husband out of the tent. The person armed with the iron rod inflicted a blow on Jasveer Singh’s neck, causing him to fall. Two further blows were inflicted—one on his forehead and the other on his head, resulting in his death at the spot due to the injuries sustained. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that complainant, Rajvir Kaur alias Raj, is the sole eye-witness in the present case. However, she has resiled from her earlier version while deposing before the Court. In the absence of any substantive evidence to support the prosecution case, and considering that appellant is in custody for a period of approximately two years, he is entitled to be released on regular bail in the present case. 4. On advance notice and in response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel submits that present appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Learned State counsel produces the custody certificate dated 05.07.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. As per the custody certificate, in the present case, appellant has already undergone 2 years, 05months and 29 days period inside jail.

5. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available before it. 6. Undoubtedly, as per the status report dated 29.01.2026 filed in bail petition of co-accused Gurjeet Singh in CRA-S-3891-2025 (Annexure P-6), complainant, Rajvir Kaur alias Raj, who is the sole eye-witness to the PRIYANKA occurrence, has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is evident from 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and Page 2 of 4 Pages integrity of this document CRA-S-727-2026 her statement (PW-1), appended with the present petition as well as with status report filed by learned State counsel, in which she has categorically stated during her examination-in-chief that she does not know who murdered her husband, as the assailants had muffled faces and it was a dark night, more so her statement was never recorded by the police. Upon being declared hostile, her cross-examination was conducted. During such cross-examination, in response to a specific query put by learned counsel for the accused, she stated that “I have never seen the accused person before today. Today I have seen the accused for the first time in the Court”

7. At this stage, this Court refrains from making any observations on the merits of complainant’s testimony or her turning hostile, as final adjudication of the case shall be undertaken by the trial Court after appreciation of the entire evidence on record. It is also well settled that mere fact of a witness turning hostile may not, by itself, be sufficient to infer the innocence of the accused. However, for the limited purpose of considering the prayer for bail, it is significant that the sole eye-witness has, as of now, not supported the prosecution case. Moreover, appellant has remained in custody for a period of approximately two years and twenty-three days, and as per the record, around 14 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined also co-accused Gurjeet Singh has already been granted bail in CRA-S-3891-2025 vide order dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-6). 8. Therefore, in view of the totality of the circumstances, nature of the allegations levelled against the appellant, and the factors noticed here above, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of bail to the PRIYANKA appellant in the present case. 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and Page 3 of 4 Pages integrity of this document CRA-S-727-2026 Consequently, prayer made in the present appeal is allowed.

Appellant is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 9. Needless to observe that the appellant shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 10. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 11. Appeal stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 07.07.2026 pry Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO PRIYANKA 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and Page 4 of 4 Pages integrity of this document