CRM-M- IN 234 Gurpreet Si v. State of Pun CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. 11.05.202 118(1), 115 vide rapat 331(7) of B Sadar Mans grant of bai 2. noticed her Labourer b pointing th brothers an residing wi nephew Ka members w -44569-2025 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA reet Singh @ Kaddi and another of Punjab AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. Sukhpreet Singh Sidhu, A Mr. Gautam Thapar, Deputy **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Petitioners, who are accuse .2025, registered against them for 1), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS (Secti rapat No. 46 dated 25.6.2025 and Se 7) of BNS added vide rapat No. 19 da r Mansa, have filed the present petitio t of bail. Relevant facts as emerging fr ed hereinbelow:- Amritpal Singh, son of Ge rer by profession, set the criminal la g therein that his father had died a rs and sisters. All his sisters are m g with his mother. On 9.5.2025, hi Karandeep Singh were visiting th rs were talking with each other in 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-44569-2025 Date of Decision: 16.01.2026 …Petitioners. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. , Advocate for the petitioners. puty Advocate General, Punjab. ccused in case FIR No. 107 date for offences under Sections 331(6 (Section 118(2) of BNS added later o nd Section 331(6) deleted and Sectio . 19 dated 15.7.2025), at Police Statio petition under Section 483 of BNSS fo ging from the documents on record b Geja Singh, resident of Dulewa al law in motion by filing a complai ied about 8 years ago. They are fiv re married. He is not married and 5, his sister Ramandeep Kaur and h g them. He along with other fami r in the courtyard of their house. A .2026 dated 331(6), later on Section Station NSS for cord be lewal, plaint re five and is nd his family se. At GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- about 10.3 known to h on the ligh Kaddi (peti sons of Mit he could r Singh and time, they a events, com was armed (P2), who head. Ranj head. He t injured his with an iro members o incident. assault and influenced another pe Singh (P1) complaint vide FIR N under Secti BNS added deleted an 15.7.2025) the treatin recorded. specific rol further the -44569-2025 -2 10.30 PM, Bhola Singh, resident to him (c), knocked at the main gain light and opened the window of the (petitioner No.1) and Rajwinder Sin Mithu Singh, raising lalkara that to ld react, aforementioned Gurpreet and other four unknown persons ba hey all were armed with weapons. W , complainant pointed out that Gur med with ‘Sword’, hit him on his for ho was also armed with a ‘Ganda Ranjeet Singh @ Ghona also gave a He tried to save himself and raised his four fingers. Bhola Singh, as p n iron chain on his right shoulder. rs of the family were not spared, t. Towards the end, complainan and maintained that Gurpreet Sing ced Gurpreet Singh’s wife to indu r person. In this context, though h (P1) that he is innocent but no hee int and medico legal reports of all IR No. 107 dated 11.05.2025, was re Sections 331(6), 118(1), 115(2), 191 dded later on vide rapat No. 46 dat and Section 331(7) of BNS ad 025), at Police Station Sadar Mansa. Investigations were set in mo treating doctor was sought and st ded. Both the petitioners-accused w ific roles were attributed to them, w er the case of the prosecution that 2- ent of Sardulgarh, who was earli gain of his house. When he switche the gate, he heard Gurpreet Singh @ Singh @ Kala (petitioner No.2), bo at today he (c) be not spared. Befo reet Singh (P1), Bhola Singh, Ran s barged in their house. At the sa ns. While mentioning the sequence Gurpreet Singh @ Kaddi (P1), wh is forehead. Rajwinder Singh @ Ka ndasi’, hit him on the left side of h ve a sword blow on the left side of h ised his left hand when in the proces as per complainant, gave him a blo lder. Shockingly enough, the fema , who also suffered injuries in th inant pointed out the reason of th Singh (P1) suspected that he (c) ha indulge in extra marital affair wi gh he had already assured Gurpre heed was paid. Based on the s f all the three injured, a formal ca registered against them for offenc 191(3), 190 of BNS (Section 118(2) dated 25.6.2025 and Section 331( S added vide rapat No. 19 date sa. in motion during which the opinion o nd statements of the witnesses we sed who were named in the FIR an em, were arrested on 17.5.2025. It n that during interrogation, both th arlier itched gh @ , both Before Ranjit e said nce of , who Kala of his of his ocess, blow female in the of the c) had r with rpreet e said l case fences 8(2) of 331(6) dated inion of es were IR and 5. It is oth the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- petitioners weapons of Section 483 vide order d filed. 3. who are b implicated FIR sugges been put f labourer, known to e social med Photograph social med learned cou in the com blow each version, w mentioned by both the the others members o falsely nam -44569-2025 -3 rs confessed to their involvement i ons of offence. Application for grant of bai on 483 of BNSS was dismissed by th order dated 8.7.2025. Aggrieved of th Learned counsel for the petitio are brothers and neighbourers of icated in the present case. Unexplained suggests that the facts have been tw put forth by the complainant, who rer, but in fact is a well known anti n to extend threats to the people an l media account just to create terro ographs said to have been uploaded l media, appended as Annexure P- ed counsel. It is further the contentio e complaint, complainant alleged that each on his head, but the medico lega on, wherein only one injury on the ioned. Further, only one of the injur oth the petitioners has been declared s have been opined as ‘Simple’ i bers of the family only received superf Learned counsel next contend ly named in the FIR. The very fact 3- ment in the crime and got recovered th of bail filed by the petitioners und by the learned Sessions Judge, Mans d of the same, present petition has bee petitioners submits that the petitioner rs of complainant have been false plained delay of two days in lodging th en twisted and a coloured version ha , who though introduced himself as n anti social figure of the area, who ple and openly flaunts weapons on h e terror in the minds of the person loaded by the complainant himself o -2, have also been referred to ntention of learned counsel that thoug d that both the brothers had given on co legal report does not corroborate th the head of complainant has bee injuries alleged to have been inflicte clared as ‘Grievous’ in nature, wherea ple’ in nature. The other two fema superficial injuries. ontends that the petitioners have bee y fact that complainant injured himse ered the s under Mansa, as been itioners, falsely ging the sion has elf as a who is s on his persons. self on d to by t though ven one rate this as been inflicted whereas female ve been himself GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- absconded the genuine investigatio but the pos for none of (Ps) further Article 21 would also incarcerati 4. State couns attack not the other extended fleeing from complainan date, is qu 5. documents 6. and the rol order. In petitioners, Court is of 17.5.2025 -44569-2025 -4 onded from the hospital during his tre enuineness of the story put forth by him The last leg of submission r tigations qua petitioners are complete, he possibility of trial being completed one of prosecution witnesses have bee further incarceration would not only 21 of the Constitution of India, also be against the principle of eration is an exception”. Per contra, while opposing the counsel contends that the petitioners not only on complainant, who suffe female members of his family, in their favour, for if released from the process of justice by not lainant and other related witnesses quite high. Dismissal of the petition Heard learned counsel for ments on record. Factual aspects of the case lea roles of the petitioners have alrea In view of submissions advanc ioners, but without expressing any opin of the opinion that the petitioners 5 and whose past antecedents are 4- his treatment, further raises a doubt o by him. sion raised by learned counsel is th plete, as challan has already been file pleted in the near future is quite remot ve been examined, in light thereof, the only be violative of their rights und including right to speedy trial of “Bail is a general rule an the request for grant of bail, learne tioners, who are brothers, unleashed suffered grievous injuries but also mily, thus, no leniency deserves to eased on bail, the likelihood of the not appearing in the Court, overawin who have not been examined petition has been prayed for. for the parties and perused leading to the registration of the FI already been noticed in para 2 of advanced by learned counsel for opinion on the merits of the case, tioners who have been in custody sinc are quite clear in the sense that the oubt on l is that en filed, remote, their under but and learned shed an also on to be them erawing till the FIR the the the since they GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- are not invo in their fav future is qu of his right speedy trial and incarc Dataram (Criminal) 7. subject to t of Rs.1 lak concerned. subject to t of Rs.1 lak concerned. -44569-2025 -5 involved in any other criminal case, favour, more so, when the possibi quite remote, their further incarcer rights under Article 21 of the Consti trial but would also be against the carceration is an exception” as hel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh inal) 131. Resultantly, petitioners are ct to their furnishing bail bonds along s.1 lakh each to the satisfaction of lea erned. The petitioners shall abide by th (i) The petitioners will not the trial. (ii) The petitioners will prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioners shall no permission of the trial Court. (iv) The petitioners shall no offence of which, they are acc they are suspected of. (v) The petitioners shall n induce, threaten or promise to facts of the case so as to dis facts to the Court or to any evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioners shall n liberty. (vii) The petitioners shall fu number to the Trial Court fo 5- case, lenient view deserves to be take ossibility of completion of trial in ne carceration would not only be violativ Constitution of India, including right principle of “Bail is a general ru held by Hon’ble Supreme Court esh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R are granted the concession of ba along with two surety bonds in the su of learned trial Court/Duty Magistra e by the following conditions:- l not tamper with the evidence durin ill not pressurize/ intimidate th ll not leave the country without prio urt. ll not commit an offence similar to th accused, or for commission of whic all not directly or indirectly coerc ise to any person acquainted with th dissuade them from disclosing suc any police officer or tamper with th all not in any manner misuse the ll furnish their addresses and mobi rt forthwith and shall not change th taken near iolative right to rule ourt in R.C.R. of bail e sum agistrate during e the t prior to the which oerce, ith the such ith the their obile ge the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. that in case at liberty t order. 9. herein are l construed a independen 16.01.2026 gbs -44569-2025 -6 same till the conclusion of the the petitioners seek to chang shall be done only with prio Court, stating the reason for th (viii) The petitioners will app and every date fixed, unless i Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M condition, as deemed app petitioners. Accordingly, the present petiti in case there is any breach of the afore erty to seek cancellation of bail as g In view of the above, it is cla n are limited for the purpose of prese trued as an opinion on the merits of the endently of the aforesaid observations .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 6- f the trial and in case for any reaso ange any of the aforesaid, the sam prior intimation to the learned Tri for the same. appear before the trial Court on eac ess is exempted by a specific order ty Magistrate may impose any oth appropriate while releasing th t petition is allowed and it is made cle e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b il as granted to the petitioners by th clarified that the observations mad f present proceedings and would not b s of the case and the trial would procee ations. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No eason, same Trial n each der of other g the de clear shall be by this ns made d not be proceed NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document