CRM-M-30640- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (305) BEANT SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191, 324( Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Boha, District Mansa. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the got recorded by the complainant Happy Singh alleging therein that he was having relationship 21.08.2025, Shagandeep Kaur and himself had left their village and had started -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BEANT SINGH Versus PUNJAB AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate and Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. M.S. Uppal, Advocate for the respondent No.2 **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been preferred Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191, 324( Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) BNS added later on) at Police Station Boha, District Mansa. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the got recorded by the complainant Happy Singh alleging therein that he was hip with Shagandeep Kaur wife of accused Satkartar Singh. On 21.08.2025, Shagandeep Kaur and himself had left their village and had started IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30640-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondents HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA for the petitioner respondent No.2 preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in case arising out of FIR No.04 dated 06.01.2026 under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191, 324(3) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) (Sections 117(2) and 118(2) BNS added later on) at Police Station Boha, District Mansa. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got recorded by the complainant Happy Singh alleging therein that he was with Shagandeep Kaur wife of accused Satkartar Singh. On 21.08.2025, Shagandeep Kaur and himself had left their village and had started (O&M) 2026 .. Petitioner s under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) 04 dated 06.01.2026 ) and 61(2) of (Sections 117(2) and 118(2) basis of statement got recorded by the complainant Happy Singh alleging therein that he was with Shagandeep Kaur wife of accused Satkartar Singh. On 21.08.2025, Shagandeep Kaur and himself had left their village and had started AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.03 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-30640- living in a live-in relationship. They had filed a petition in the Mansa Court and recorded their statements. He had come back to his Village Korewala after about one month. Shagandeep Kaur had also started living in her parental home. On 02.01.2026, she cal of Shagandeep Kaur was not happy with their relationship, she called the police when the complainant had gone to meet Shagandeep kaur in her village. The complainant was apprehended by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Budhlada on 03.01.2026. On 05.01.2026, the complainant alongwith his family members had left his village for the purpose of furnishing bonds in compliance w Magistrate and while on way, they were intercepted by Swift the petitioner. He was holding a complainant with the same. The complainant locked himself inside his car, however, the petitione assault by smashing glasses of his vehicle and damaging the same. His maternal uncle and one Rai Singh who were sitting in the vehicle fled out of the car to save themselves. The accused Satkartar Sin more unknown persons came out of Swift car. Accused Satkartar Singh struck blows with kirpan caused injuries to his father with baseball bat. The complainant rushed for rescue of his father but he too sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioner and co-accused Satkartar Singh. On clamour being raised from the spot. -2026 (O&M) 2 in relationship. They had filed a petition in the Mansa Court and recorded their statements. He had come back to his Village Korewala after about one month. Shagandeep Kaur had also started living in her parental home. On 02.01.2026, she called him at her native village. Since Veerpal Kaur of Shagandeep Kaur was not happy with their relationship, she called the police when the complainant had gone to meet Shagandeep kaur in her village. The complainant was apprehended by the Police and was produced at the office of Divisional Magistrate, Budhlada on 03.01.2026. On 05.01.2026, the complainant alongwith his family members had left his village for the purpose of furnishing bonds in compliance with the order passed by the Sub Magistrate and while on way, they were intercepted by Swift the petitioner. He was holding a kirpan in his hand and tried to hit the complainant with the same. The complainant locked himself inside his car, however, the petitioner accompanied by other muffled face persons opened an assault by smashing glasses of his vehicle and damaging the same. His maternal uncle and one Rai Singh who were sitting in the vehicle fled out of the car to save themselves. The accused Satkartar Singh by holding a more unknown persons came out of Swift car. Accused Satkartar Singh struck kirpan on the person of his father and the 02 unknown persons caused injuries to his father with baseball bat. The complainant rushed for rescue of his father but he too sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioner accused Satkartar Singh. On clamour being raised in relationship. They had filed a petition in the Mansa Court and recorded their statements. He had come back to his Village Korewala after about one month. Shagandeep Kaur had also started living in her parental home. led him at her native village. Since Veerpal Kaur, mother of Shagandeep Kaur was not happy with their relationship, she called the police, when the complainant had gone to meet Shagandeep kaur in her village. The and was produced at the office of Divisional Magistrate, Budhlada on 03.01.2026. On 05.01.2026, the complainant alongwith his family members had left his village for the purpose ith the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and while on way, they were intercepted by Swift Dzire car driven by in his hand and tried to hit the complainant with the same. The complainant locked himself inside his car, r accompanied by other muffled face persons opened an assault by smashing glasses of his vehicle and damaging the same. His maternal uncle and one Rai Singh who were sitting in the vehicle fled out of the car to gh by holding a kirpan and two more unknown persons came out of Swift car. Accused Satkartar Singh struck on the person of his father and the 02 unknown persons caused injuries to his father with baseball bat. The complainant rushed for rescue of his father but he too sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioner accused Satkartar Singh. On clamour being raised, the assailants fled in relationship. They had filed a petition in the Mansa Court and recorded their statements. He had come back to his Village Korewala after about one month. Shagandeep Kaur had also started living in her parental home. mother , when the complainant had gone to meet Shagandeep kaur in her village. The and was produced at the office of Divisional Magistrate, Budhlada on 03.01.2026. On 05.01.2026, the complainant alongwith his family members had left his village for the purpose onal car driven by in his hand and tried to hit the complainant with the same. The complainant locked himself inside his car, r accompanied by other muffled face persons opened an assault by smashing glasses of his vehicle and damaging the same. His maternal uncle and one Rai Singh who were sitting in the vehicle fled out of the car to and two more unknown persons came out of Swift car. Accused Satkartar Singh struck on the person of his father and the 02 unknown persons caused injuries to his father with baseball bat. The complainant rushed for rescue of his father but he too sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioner the assailants fled AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.03 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-30640- 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 06.03.2026. Investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of 30 hours in reporting the matter to the police which has n attributed to him. The allegations against him are omnibus and general in nature. He had no motive to assault the complainant or his father. He is in custody since long. He is not required for fu stands concluded and challan has been presented. His antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 membership of an unlawful assembly with the co simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant an complainant sustained several injuries which are serious in nature. Injuries by kirpan have been attributed to the intimidating the complainant and other witnesses, if extended benefit of b is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. -2026 (O&M) 3 After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. titioner was arrested on 06.03.2026. Investigation now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of 30 hours in reporting the matter to the police which has not been properly explained. No specific injury has been attributed to him. The allegations against him are omnibus and general in nature. He had no motive to assault the complainant or his father. He is in custody since long. He is not required for fu stands concluded and challan has been presented. His antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. rned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant has argued that the petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant an complainant sustained several injuries which are serious in nature. Injuries by have been attributed to the petitioner. There are chances of intimidating the complainant and other witnesses, if extended benefit of b is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. titioner was arrested on 06.03.2026. Investigation now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of 30 hours in reporting the matter ot been properly explained. No specific injury has been attributed to him. The allegations against him are omnibus and general in nature. He had no motive to assault the complainant or his father. He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation as the same stands concluded and challan has been presented. His antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. rned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the petitioner by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant and his father. The complainant sustained several injuries which are serious in nature. Injuries by . There are chances of petitioner’s intimidating the complainant and other witnesses, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of 30 hours in reporting the matter ot been properly explained. No specific injury has been attributed to him. The allegations against him are omnibus and general in nature. He had no motive to assault the complainant or his father. He is in rther investigation as the same stands concluded and challan has been presented. His antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, rned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the petitioner by forming accused voluntarily caused d his father. The complainant sustained several injuries which are serious in nature. Injuries by petitioner’s ail. It This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.03 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-30640- 7. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co thereof is alleged to have voluntarily father. The allegations make out a offences as against the The investigation has been concluded as such no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody anymore. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. the rule and jail is an exception. Pre post-conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or pu petition is allowed his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned 8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. 9. Since the main petition has any, is rendered infructuous. 02.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 4 The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an lawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object thereof is alleged to have voluntarily caused injuries to the complainant and his father. The allegations make out a prima facie offences as against the petitioner. However, he is in custody since 06.03.2026. The investigation has been concluded as such no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody anymore. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. The well settled the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or pu petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. Since the main petition has been allowed, any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an accused and in prosecution of common object caused injuries to the complainant and his case for commission of subject petitioner. However, he is in custody since 06.03.2026. The investigation has been concluded as such no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody anymore. Trial will take The well settled proposition of law is that bail is trial incarceration should not be replica of conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Accordingly, the and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an accused and in prosecution of common object caused injuries to the complainant and his case for commission of subject petitioner. However, he is in custody since 06.03.2026. The investigation has been concluded as such no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody anymore. Trial will take of law is that bail is trial incarceration should not be replica of conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the Accordingly, the and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.03 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.