CRM-M-13746-2025 -1- 253 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13746-2025 Date of Decision:19.03.2025 SUKHWINDER SINGH @ HATHORA AND ANOTHER …PETITIONERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Deepinder Singh Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, with a prayer to grant regular bail to them in case FIR No.99 dated 06.04.2024, registered under Sections 379-B(2), 392, 397, 342, 451, 411, 120-B of IPC and Sections 25, 27 Arms Act, Police Station Civil Line Batala, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the FIR was initially registered against 03 unknown persons. However, after 07 days of the occurrence, the police allegedly recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant to the effect that he had come to know about the persons, who had committed robbery at his shop and he could identify them. On the basis of such a weak statement, the petitioners were also nominated as an accused in the present case vide GD No.33 dated 13.04.2024. The petitioners were arrested in VIPIN KUMAR 2025.03.21 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-13746-2025 -2- the present case on 14.04.2024 and are in custody since then. He further contends that the complainant in the present case has been examined as PW-1 and he had not identified the petitioners in the present case. Moreover, co- accused Baljit Singh @ Natti has already been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 Annexure P-3. Moreover, the parties have compromised the matter and have amicably resolved all the disputes. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that 11 other cases have been registered against the petitioners and they do not deserve the concession of bail by this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In the present case, the petitioners are stated to be in custody for the last 11 months and the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. Moreover, the similarly placed co-accused Baljit Singh @ Natti has already been ordered to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 Annexure P-3. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. 19.03.2025 (N.S. SHEKHAWAT) vipin JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIPIN KUMAR 2025.03.21 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order