Judgment Mr. Suvir Sehgal, J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned 04 petitions as all the petitioners are accused in the same FIR and have approached this Court by way of separate petitions under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 160 07.09.2022 Garhshankar,   District Hoshiarpur 304, 201 and 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Section 22 and 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985 2. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CRM-M- 990-2023. 3. Case of the prosecution is that FIR, Annexure P-1, has been registered on the statement of Mandeep Kaur, mother of Lakhpreet Singh @ Laadi (deceased). She stated that on 24.08.2022, dead body of her son was found at an uninhabited place and as she was in state of shock, she could not get her statement recorded. Now she has come to know that on the fateful day, Sangat Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-990-2023), took her son on a motorcycle to meet Hardeep Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-18377-2023). They were accompanied by Balvinder Singh @ Golu (petitioner in CRM-M-2683-2023) and Davinder Ghai @ Munna (petitioner in CRM-M-21693-2023). An intoxicant was injected due to which Lakhpreet Singh expired. It has been alleged that the accused connived with each other and disposed of his body at an abandoned place. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the unfortunate incident had taken place on 24.08.2022, but FIR has been registered after a delay of more than a fortnight, for which no explanation has been given by the complainant. It is his case that the deceased was a drug addict and his death took place because of accidental overdose of drugs. Counsel submits that the petitioners, who are in custody since September, 2022, deserve to be enlarged on bail as investigation is complete, final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. has been presented and charge has been framed. It is asserted that accused-Balvinder Singh and Davinder Ghai have clean antecedents, Hardeep Singh was named as an accused in a case under the Excise Act, but he has been acquitted, whereas Sangat Singh is involved in a false criminal case for an offence under Section 52-A of the Prisons Act, 1894, which entails a maximum punishment of three years. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the petition. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the petition. While making a reference to the short reply filed on behalf of the State, he urges that a heavy dosage of intoxicant was deliberately administered to the deceased and the petitioners, who acted in connivance with each other, are responsible for his death. He has invited the attention of the Court to the disclosure statement of Sangat Singh. Still further, he submits that scooter used for transporting the dead body, has been recovered from accused-Hardeep Singh and a syringe with residual intoxicant has been recovered from accused-Balvinder Singh. Upon further instructions, he submits that out of 18 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions. 7. The role ascribed to the accused, the controversy as to whether the deceased was deliberately given an overdose of drug or it was accidental and the allegation regarding the disposal of the body, would be adjudicated by the trial court on the basis of evidence adduced before it. Noticing the length of custody, stage of trail, nature of allegations and the antecedents of the accused, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer made in the petitions. 8. Without adverting to the merits or de-merits of the arguments addressed by counsel for the parties, petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. It is clarified that any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.