224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA LOVEPREET SINGH ALIAS LABBI THE STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Dhanpat Rai Singla, Advocate, for the complainant. **** Sumeet Goel, J.(O 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.93 dated 10.10.2025 under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(3), 61(2), 191(3), 190 of BN 25/27 Arms Act and Section 118(1), 118(2) of BNS, 2023 (324, 336 IPC), added later on, registered at Police Station Nandgarh, 2. The prosecution version, in brief, is th the statement of complainant Harjinder Singh with the accusations that Dera of Baba Gareeb Dass of their village had land measuring 21 acres and on the directions of head of said Dera namely Baba Manpreet Dass, they w the said land. Sadh Harmandas resident of Danewala (Malout), Distt. Sri Mukatsar Sahib had dispute qua the said land with Baba Manpreet and litigation was going IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of Decision : Date of uploading: LOVEPREET SINGH ALIAS LABBI VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Dhanpat Rai Singla, Advocate, for the complainant. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.93 dated 10.10.2025 under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(3), 61(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (307, 323, 506, 120-B, 148, 149 25/27 Arms Act and Section 118(1), 118(2) of BNS, 2023 (324, 336 IPC), added later on, registered at Police Station Nandgarh, District The prosecution version, in brief, is that instant case has been registered on the statement of complainant Harjinder Singh with the accusations that Dera of Baba Gareeb Dass of their village had land measuring 21 acres and on the directions of head of said Dera namely Baba Manpreet Dass, they w the said land. Sadh Harmandas resident of Danewala (Malout), Distt. Sri Mukatsar Sahib had dispute qua the said land with Baba Manpreet and litigation was going IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M-22318-2026 Date of Decision : 14.07 2026 Date of uploading: 15.07.2026 ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Mr. Dhanpat Rai Singla, Advocate, for the complainant. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.93 dated 10.10.2025 under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(3), 61(2), B, 148, 149 of IPC) and Section 25/27 Arms Act and Section 118(1), 118(2) of BNS, 2023 (324, 336 IPC), added District Bathinda, Punjab. at instant case has been registered on the statement of complainant Harjinder Singh with the accusations that Dera of Baba Gareeb Dass of their village had land measuring 21 acres and on the directions of head of said Dera namely Baba Manpreet Dass, they were managing the said land. Sadh Harmandas resident of Danewala (Malout), Distt. Sri Mukatsar Sahib had dispute qua the said land with Baba Manpreet and litigation was going Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.93 dated 10.10.2025 under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(3), 61(2), IPC) and Section 25/27 Arms Act and Section 118(1), 118(2) of BNS, 2023 (324, 336 IPC), added at instant case has been registered on the statement of complainant Harjinder Singh with the accusations that Dera of Baba Gareeb Dass of their village had land measuring 21 acres and on the ere managing the said land. Sadh Harmandas resident of Danewala (Malout), Distt. Sri Mukatsar Sahib had dispute qua the said land with Baba Manpreet and litigation was going VANDANA YADAV 2026.07.15 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22318-2026 P a g e | 2 on in Courts. On 09.10.2025, his father had gone to work in the land of above said Dera since morning and he had gone along with meals for his father on his Ritz car and on the way, he spotted 4-5 cars coming from village Mana. In those vehicle, there was one Alto car of Maroon colour bearing RC No. PB-03BJ-4863, being driven by Swaran Singh son of Sukhmander Singh and Lovepreet Singh @ Labbi (applicant) son of Shivraj Singh armed with Kirpan, Harcharan Singh son of Sukhmander Singh and Nachattar Singh son of Karam Singh residents of Bambiha alighted from the same. In the second car make Verna of white colour with RC No. PB-03AF-5765 being driven by Gurchehal Singh son of Harcharan Singh, Gurwinder Singh son of Jagseer Singh armed with stick, Gurchahal Singh residents of Bambiha and two unknown persons had alighted and from the two other cars 8- 10 unknown persons alighted. Harcharan Singh brandished pistol held in his right hand and stated that they would teach a lesson for taking possession of land of Baba Harman Dass. Then, Gurchahal Singh asked Lovepreet Singh @ Labbi in loud voice to eliminate him by giving Kirpan blow on his head. On this, Lovepreet Singh @ Labbi gave blow of Kirpan with both of his hands, with intention to kill him, on his head and when he raised his left hand, the blow chopped of his arm from elbow and blood started oozing out. He raised alarm and fell down and while he was lying Gurwinder Singh gave stick blow on right side of his head. On hearing his hue and cry, his father rushed towards him and Swaran Singh took out pistol from his breeches and told his father that they had only used Kirpan this time and would use fire arm next time. Thereafter, the above assailants fled away in the above-mentioned vehicles along with their respective weapons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 09.12.2025. Learned counsel has further urged that there is a pending civil suit between the parties on account of which the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the VANDANA YADAV 2026.07.15 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22318-2026 P a g e | 3 injury attributed to the petitioner upon the person of the injured has been found to be grievous but it is not clearly made out from the prosecution material that the offence under Section 109 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 307 of the IPC) is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that, in any case, the injured stands discharged after requisite medical treatment and is in fine shape. Thus, grant of regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit of Sh. Harvinder Singh Sra, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rural, Bathinda in Court on 19.05.2026. The same is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the petitioner herein is the main perpetrator of the crime. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that petitioner has antecedents in the form of three other FIRs and thus he is an habitual offender. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 13.07.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 4.1 Learned counsel for the complainant in this regard has drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.6 of the said status report, which reads as under:- 6. That upon alighting, accused Harcharan Singh waved pistol in the air, which was held in his right hand and raised lalkara stating that they would teach a lesson to the complainant for trying to take possession of Baba Harmandas' land. Thereafter, Garchahal Singh exhorted, and said the petitioner Lovepreet Singh alias Labbi to give a below of his sword on the head of the complainant and kill him. Following which the petitioner Lovepreet Singh alias Labbi, gave a blow of his sword towards the head of the complainant with the intention of killing him. But the complainant raised his left hand in order to protect himself, resultantly the sword hit to the complainant's left arm elbow. The complainant screamed and fell down on the ground. While the complainant was lying on the ground, accused Gurvinder Singh gave a blow of his stick on the complainant's head towards right side. On hearing the hue and cry, the complainant's father Gurmail Singh rushed towards him, whereupon accused Swarn Singh, showing the pistol to the complainant and his father, said that they have used Kirpan, and next time they will use fire arm. Thereafter all the abovesaid assailants alongwith fled from the place their weapons occurrence their respective vehicles. on away of The complainant was initially got admitted in Civil Hospital. Subsequently he was referred to Cosmo Hospital, Bathinda. VANDANA YADAV 2026.07.15 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22318-2026 P a g e | 4 Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated for dismissal of the petition in hand. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 09.12.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 20.1.2026 and subsequently filed. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none have been examined till date as the charges are yet to be framed. It is not in dispute that the victim/injured stands discharged after receiving requisite medical treatment. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 13.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 07 months and 03 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 06 more cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822- VANDANA YADAV 2026.07.15 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22318-2026 P a g e | 5 2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell- phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) 14.07.2026 JUDGE Vandana Yadav Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No VANDANA YADAV 2026.07.15 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document