CRM-M-1755-2025 -1- 233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1755-2025 Date of Decision:30.04.2025 SANDEEP SINGH ALIAS BABA ALIAS DHONI …PETITIONER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Tejbir Singh Hundal, Advocate with Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepinder Singh Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.66 dated 24.09.2024, registered under Sections 309(3), 309(4), 115(2) of BNS, Police Station Ajitwal, District Moga. 2. On the oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 117(2) and 3(5) of BNS are ordered to be added in the head note as well as prayer clause of the petition. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case with some ulterior motive. He further contends that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 24.09.2024 and after completion of investigation, challan has been presented against him. He next contends that the prosecution has place reliance on 17 witnesses, but no VIPIN KUMAR 2025.05.01 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-1755-2025 -2- witness has been examined so far. Moreover, the petitioner is not in a position to influence the witnesses of the prosecution. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court. However, he admits that the petitioner is a first offender and was never involved in any other criminal activity as per the police record. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In the present case, the petitioner and his accomplices are stated to have caused injuries on the person of Gurpreet Singh and one injury was declared to be grievous in nature. However, Gurpreet Singh has been discharged long ago and is hale, hearty and physically fit at this stage. The petitioner has already faced the custody for a period of more than 07 months and no witness has been examined so far. Thus, further custody of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. 7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. 30.04.2025 (N.S. SHEKHAWAT) vipin JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIPIN KUMAR 2025.05.01 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order