CRM-M-7535-2025 & 1- CRM-M-8620-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 4th April, 2025 234 CRM-M-7535-2025 Surjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 237 CRM-M-8620-2025 Pargat Singh @ Lovely @ Neelu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ram Avtar Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CRM-M-7535-2025) Mr. Harpreet Maini, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CRM-M-8620-2025) Ms. Swati Batra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Ms. Suman Rani, Advocate for the complainant. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- 1. This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned two petitions seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 371 dated 05.10.2024 registered under Sections 140(1), 115(2), 190 and 112 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) registered at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot. 2. As per the allegations, on 05.10.2024, Sukhvir Singh son of the complainant Jasbir Kaur along with his friends Sukhpreet Singh, had gone to service station of Paras, for getting service of his motorcycle done. The petitioner-Pargat Singh accompanied by the co-accused and 3-4 unknown youths reached there on motor bikes and started assaulting the son of the complainant. Thereafter, he was abducted and taken to airplane ground, Parveen Sharma 2025.04.07 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7535-2025 & 2- CRM-M-8620-2025 where the petitioner Surjit Singh and 2-3 persons unknown to the victim, were already present. The victim was undressed by them and was extended beatings. The complainant was informed about this fact and rushed towards the spot and thereafter, the assailants fled. The victim-Sukhbir Singh was taken to hospital. He sustained as many as 27 injuries, 03 of which were declared to be grievous in nature. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner Pargat Singh was arrested on 09.10.2024, whereas, the petitioner Surjit Singh was arrested on 24.10.2024. They were interrogated and admitted their involvement in the subject crime. Investigation has since been completed. 3. It is jointly argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They are in custody since long. Trial would take considerable time to conclude. It was after making due deliberations and consultations that they were named after two days of the incident since there is delay in lodging of the FIR. Their further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Their involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a ground for denying benefit of bail to them in this case. As such, it is urged that they deserve to be released on bail. 4. Status reports have been filed by respondent-State. It is argued by learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and keeping in view the gravity thereof, they do not deserve to be extended benefit of bail especially when they have criminal antecedents. It is, accordingly, urged that the petitions do not deserve to be allowed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable Parveen Sharma 2025.04.07 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7535-2025 & 3- CRM-M-8620-2025 length and have gone through the record carefully. 6. The petitioners by forming membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused, are alleged to have assaulted the son of the complainant after abducting him. However, given the nature of the allegations, it is a debatable question as to whether, a case for commission of offences under Sections 140 and 112 of BNS has been made out or not? The petitioners are in custody since 09.10.2024 and 24.10.2024 respectively. Trial would take time. The injuries as sustained by the victim have been opined to be simple in nature. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody anymore. Their involvement in any other cases cannot be stated to be a ground for rejecting their prayer for release on bail. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, it is held that the petitioners make out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. 7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. 9. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 4th April, 2025 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No Parveen Sharma 2025.04.07 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document