Prabal Titus vs State Of Punjab

CRM M-45826 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104+243 CRM M- 45826 of 2026
Date of Decision: 12.11.2026
Prabal Titus ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Advocate
Mr. S.S. Kang, Advocate
Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Karan Khanuja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Navkiran Bajwa, Advocate
Mr. Harshal Jariyal, Advocate for
Mr. R.S. Bal, Advocate, for the complainant.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
regular bail to him in FIR No. 39 dated 10.05.2024, initially
registered under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
AMIT RANA
2026.11.13 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-45826-2026 (O&M) -2-
1860 (corresponding to Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), at Police Station IT City, Mohali. During
investigation, Section 120-B IPC (Section 61(2) BNS) was deleted
and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Section 193 BNSS)
was presented only for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC
(Section 103(1) BNS).
2. Lea ned senior c el
r ouns for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that the petitioner is a young boy aged 26 years and is a LLM
postgraduate. He has no criminal antecedents and has been falsely
involved in the FIR captioned above without any credible legal
evidence connecting him with the commission of the alleged crime. In
fact, the FIR in the present case is a result of confabulations, designed
fabrication and clearly demonstrates unholy collaboration between the
complainant side and the local police officials. In fact, soon after the
occurrence, the police was made apprised of the mishap by the
petitioner himself and the police had started investigating the case
even much prior to the registration of the FIR. This fact is also
established from the CCTV recording of the police station as well as
hospital at Sohana, SAS Nagar. Later on, a false story was concocted
by the investigating agency and by planting the informant, the FIR
was wrongly registered against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel
further submits that even the police officials were aware of the
truthfulness of facts much prior to the lodging of the FIR and during
AMIT RANA
2026.11.13 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-45826-2026 (O&M) -3-
the course of trial sufficient material has been brought on the file of
the trial Court which exposes the falsehood of the prosecution case.
3. Learned senior counsel further submits that the CCTV
footage, which was obtained from hospital at Sohana, which was
played during trial during the course of examination-in-chief of PW-2
Pritpal Singh clearly establishes the innocence of the petitioner. It
clearly shows that the petitioner accompanied Karanvir Singh
injured/deceased to the hospital at around 06:50 p.m. on 09.05.2024
and they were accompanied by a police officer. It was the petitioner,
who got the injured admitted in the hospital and even remained
present in the hospital for more than 1 ½ hour and even the police
officials from Police Station IT City were also seen roaming there
with the petitioner. Still further, the CCTV footage also demolishes
the prosecution case that the police had come to know about the
incident from PW2 Pritpal Singh at about 01.05 a.m. on 10.05.2024,
when he met the police party at Airport Chowk during patrolling. In
fact, the CCTV footage obtained from Sohana Hospital clearly shows
that the police was aware of the entire incident from 06:50 p.m.
onward. ASI Baldev Singh had accompanied the petitioner on the
entire route from PS IT City to Sohana Hospital. Even, ASI Baldev
Singh is seen in CCTV recording inspecting the Alto car at Sohana
Hospital and had taken the photographs of the interiors of the Alto
car. He had also collected evidence in a transparent poly bag at
AMIT RANA
2026.11.13 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-45826-2026 (O&M) -4-
Sohana hospital at 07.26 p.m. and Amardeep Tareeka, IO in the case
was at Sohana Hospital from 07.52 p.m. to 08.35 p.m. and was
speaking with the family of the deceased. Even, the police officials
were seen talking to the complainant PW2 Preetpal Singh, which
proves that the story projected in the FIR (Annexure P1) is false and
fabricated.
3. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner
is law abiding and compassionate person and had not only shifted the
deceased to the hospital in his own car but had disclosed to the
hospital authorities the factum of quarrel, when Karnvir
injured/deceased had attacked him. He informed his father
immediately and they had gone together to the Police Station, IT City
and also tried to inform the family of the deceased on finding the
condition of injured to be critical. Not only that, it is also a proved
fact that Karnvir Singh, since injured, was shifted for treatment under
police escort and the correct facts were disclosed to the police by the
petitioner himself. Not only that, the petitioner and his father
remained in hospital from 6.51 p.m. to 8.20 p.m. with the deceased
and their presence in the hospital clearly reflects their presence and
absence of any guilty conduct. Even, when the petitioner was falsely
involved in the present case, the petitioner voluntarily surrendered
before the authorities and was taken in custody on 10.05.2024. Now
AMIT RANA
2026.11.13 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-45826-2026 (O&M) -5-
the petitioner has already suffered custody for the last more than 02
years and 06 months as an undertrial prisoner.
4. Learned senior counsel further refers to the various
zimini orders passed by the trial Court from 21.11.2024 to 01.05.2026
to contend that the prosecution has made every possible attempt to
delay the trial before the trial Court. Even various zimini orders would
clearly establish that the witnesses of the prosecution had
intentionally not appeared before the trial Court despite service and
the prosecution has been able to examine only 07 witnesses so far and
the petitioner deserves to be granted the concession of bail only on
this ground. He further submits that the prosecution has examined
PW1 Sukhdeep Singh, neighbourer of the deceased, PW2 Pritpal
Singh, father of the deceased and complainant, PW3 Dr. Sandeep
Raju, who conducted the postmortem examination, PW4 Lakhbir
Singh, paternal uncle of the deceased, PW5 Harinder Singh Laddi
friend of the deceased, PW6 Harpreet Singh eye witness and PW7
Akanksha Dogra, another material witness and since all the material
witnesses have been examined, there are no chances of tampering
with the prosecution evidence any further.
5. Learned senior counsel further extensively refers to the
testimony of PW3 Dr. Sandeep Raju, who had conducted the
post-mortem examination on the dead body of Karanvir Singh, since
deceased, to contend that he had no past experience of having
AMIT RANA
2026.11.13 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-45826-2026 (O&M) -6-
conducted the post-mortem examination and had wrongly held to be a
case of death by strangulation. He further submits that in the present
case, the standard and uniform features of strangulation were clearly
missing and the doctor did not rule out the possibility of vagal
inhibition as cause of death. He further refers to his testimony to
contend that the said witnesses had tacitly admitted that the death in
the instant case could possibly be result of vasovagal inhibition. Thus,
the ingredients of the offence under Section 302 of IPC in the present
case would be debatable. Learner senior counsel further submits that
the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 10.05.2024 and his
continued incarceration has aggravated his health conditions. In fact,
the petitioner is suffering from acute bronchial asthma, which was
diagnosed when the petitioner was 01 year old. Even, during his stay
in jail, he has developed serious chest allergies, which is deteriorating
his health conditions with each passing day and he is under constant
medical supervision even in jail. Even, the jail doctors have
prescribed two inhalers i.e Levolin inhaler and Budecort inhaler on a
daily regular basis apart from other medicines. Apart from that, the
petitioner is highly educated person, who is presently pursuing his PG
diploma in criminal jurisprudence at Indira Gandhi Open National
University. Still further the petitioner was never involved in any other
criminal activity and has clean antecedents.
AMIT RANA
2026.11.13 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-45826-2026 (O&M) -7-
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by
learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner on
the ground that the petitioner is only accused in the present case and
has killed Karanvir Singh over a trivial issue. Learned counsel further
submit that Karanvir Singh deceased liked a girl Akanksha Dogra for
the 03/04 years and both of them were good friends. The petitioner
also liked the same girl and due to the said grudge, the petitioner had
brutally beaten up Karanvir Singh and strangulated him to death.
Even, the involvement of the petitioner was established during the
course of investigation and the medical record of Karanvir Singh was
collected by the police from the hospital at Sohana. It was found that
the petitioner had caused injuries to Karanvir Singh, who succumbed
to the injuries suffered in the accident. The FSL team had conducted
the forensic examination of Alto car of the petitioner and a report was
prepared in this regard, which clearly suggested that the petitioner had
committed the murder of Karanvir Singh. Apart from that, the board
of doctors had clearly opined that the cause of death in the present
case was asphyxia consequent upon strangulation which was
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Thus, keeping
in view the gravity of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve the
concession of bail.
AMIT RANA
2026.11.13 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-45826-2026 (O&M) -8-
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record very carefully.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Moti Ram
v. State of M.P., (1978) 4 SCC 47, while discussing pre-trial
detention, held as follows:
"14. The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave.
Defendants presumed innocent are subjected to the
psychological and physical deprivations of jail life,
usually under more onerous conditions than are imposed
on convicted defendants. The jailed defendant loses his
job if he has one and is prevented from contributing to
the preparation of his defence. Equally important, the
burden of his detention frequently falls heavily on the
innocent members of his family."
9. Thereafter, the law and philosophy of bail was further
enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vaman
Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 473 :
2009(1) R.A.J. 142 : (2009) 2 SCC 281, and held as follows:
"6. "Bail" remains an undefined term in Criminal
Procedure Code. Nowhere else has the term been
statutorily defined. Conceptually, it continues to be
understood as a right for assertion of freedom against
the State imposing restraints. Since the UN Declaration
of Human Rights of 1948, to which India is a signatory,
the concept of bail has found a place within the scope of
human rights. The dictionary meaning of the expression
"bail" denotes a security for appearance of a prisoner
for his release. Etymologically, the word is derived from
AMIT RANA
2026.11.13 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-45826-2026 (O&M) -9-
an old French verb "bailer" which means to "give" or "to
deliver", although another view is that its derivation is
from the Latin term "baiulare", meaning "to bear a
burden". Bail is a conditional liberty. Stroud's Judicial
Dictionary (4th Edn., 1971) spells out certain other
details. It states:
"... when a man is taken or arrested for felony, suspicion
of felony, indicted of felony, or any such case, so that he
is restrained of his liberty. And, being by law bailable,
offereth surety to those which have authority to bail him,
which sureties are bound for him to the King's use in a
certain sums of money, or body for body, that he shall
appear before the justices of goal delivery at the next
sessions, etc. Then upon the bonds of these sureties, as is
aforesaid, he is bailed that is to say, set at liberty until
the day appointed for his appearance." Bail may thus be
regarded as a mechanism whereby the State devolves
upon the community the function of securing the
presence of the prisoners, and at the same time involves
participation of the community in administration of
justice.
7.Personal liberty is fundamental and can be
circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law.
Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to
balance with the security of the community. A balance is
required to be maintained between the personal liberty of
the accused and the investigational right of the police. It
must result in minimum interference with the personal
liberty of the accused and the right of the police to
investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting
demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of
AMIT RANA
2026.11.13 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-45826-2026 (O&M) -10-
the society for being shielded from the hazards of being
exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have
committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental
canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of
innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty
exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more
restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty
we have. (See A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras)
8.The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its
own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the
administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges
from the conflict between the police power to restrict
liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a
crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the
alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody
with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his
guilt."
10. Still further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005)8 SCC 21, has held as
follows:
"18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in
an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused
had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the
charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or
fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour,
means, position and standing of the accused; (vi)
likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and
AMIT RANA
2026.11.13 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-45826-2026 (O&M) -11-
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi
and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) ]. While a
vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the
evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail,
if the accused is of such character that his mere presence
at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is
material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert
justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be
refused. We may also refer to the following principles
relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan : (SCC pp. 535-36,
para 11)
"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very
well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of
the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a
need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly
where the accused is charged of having committed a
serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would
suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary
for the court granting bail to consider other
circumstances, the following factors also before granting
bail; they are :
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence.
AMIT RANA
2026.11.13 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-45826-2026 (O&M) -12-
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the
charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan
Singh and Puran v. Rambilas. )"
22. While a detailed examination of the evidence is to be
avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure
that there is no prejudging and no prejudice, a brief
examination to be satisfied about the existence or
otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary."
11. Now reverting to the facts of the present case, this Court
is conscious of the fact that the petitioner has been charged with a
serious offence. However, at the same time, this Court cannot be
oblivious of the fact that on the one hand the petitioner has been
detained in jail as an undertrial prisoner since 10.05.2024, whereas,
on 39 dates of hearing fixed before the trial Court, only 07 witnesses
have been examined so far. Rather from various interim orders passed
by the trial Court, it is apparent that the prosecution has made every
attempt to delay the trial before the trial Court. In any case, the
prosecution has examined all the material witnesses in the present
case and only official witnesses remained to be examined by the trial
Court. Thus, there are no chances of tampering with the prosecution
evidence. Apart from that, even during the course of hearing, the
prosecution has not been able to demonstrate that the petitioner is in a
capacity to tamper with the prosecution evidence or may evade the
process of law. Rather, from the background of the petitioner, it is
AMIT RANA
2026.11.13 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-45826-2026 (O&M) -13-
apparent that he is a LLM postgraduate and has no criminal
antecedents. Apart from that, this Court has also noticed the fact that
the petitioner himself had informed the police and had shifted
Karanvir Singh to the hospital and had remained with the injured in
the hospital for a period of over 1 ½ hours. Apart from that, even the
Dr. Sandeep Raju, who had conducted the postmortem examination
on the dead body of Kamanvir Singh was examined as PW3 and he
had not ruled out the possibility of death by vagal inhibition. Thus,
the trial Court is yet to appreciate the prosecution evidence with
regard to the ingredients of the offence under Section 302 IPC.
12. At this stage without commenting on anything on the
merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/CJM concerned.
13. Needless to observe that the above observations have
been made in the order only for the limited purpose for disposal of the
present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
12.11.2026 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
AMIT RANA
2026.11.13 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document