242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14273-2025 Date of Decision:08.05.2025 Manjit Singh @ MC …Petitioner vs. State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Surinder Singh Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No. 116, dated 05.07.2024, registered under Sections 115,118(1),118(2),189, 190 of B.N.S, 238 ,115(2),191(3) of BN.S added later on and Sections 115 and 189 of B.N.S deleted later on, Police Station City Muktsar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (Annexure P-1). 2. The F.I.R in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Satwinder Singh son of Makhan Singh and the same has been reproduced below:- “Statement of Satwinder Singh S/o Makhan Singh r/o Gali No. 03 Goniana Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib Mobile No. 94639- 79170, stated that I am resident of above said address and I am carpenter. On dated 02.07.2024 I along with Sahil S/o Surender Singh, resident of Jalalabad Road, Gali No. 3 and Harpreet Singh S/o Dev Singh, R/o Goniana Road. All three at about 10:30 PM HITESH 2025.05.08 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-14273-2025 -2 met after dinner outside Gali No. 5 Abohar Road for walk. In the meantime Karam Singh S/o Jasvir Musala Khanda and Gagandeep Singh @ Money S/o Baggi Singh Musala Kirpan, Arpan Singh S/o Sarwan Singh Musala Kahi Da Dasta, Jaskarn Singh S/o Bhola Singh, Musala Lakdi Da Dasta, Shamsher Singh S/o Sarvan Singh Musala Kirpan, Manjit Singh S/o Nachhatar Singh Musala Kirpan and Shambhu Singh S/o Raju Singh Musala Kapa residents of Goniana Road Sri Muktsar Sahib came after us and on reaching Gagandeep Singh @ Money Singh said to Sahib that you gave me beatings in lieu of the sister of Harpreet, today I you will be teach the lesson for that. Then Sahil said to all that the dispute has already been resolved then I saw Karma Singh gave Khanda blow to Sahil which cut the wrist of the left arm and all other gave injuries with their respective weapons. So injuries were given. When I rescued Sahil from them, then Shambhu Singh gave Kopa blow on my left hand which struck on the upper part of my hand. I and Harpreet raised the alarm Mar Diya Mar Diya. All these fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Then I and Harpreet arranged the vehicle and get Sahil admitted in the Government Hospital SMS due to more injuries. Where Sahil was referred to GGS Faridkot Medical College. Then I went to my house. The cause of dispute is that Gagandeep @ Money is annoyed with Sahil due to the sorry felt with regard to sister of Harpreet Singh. Due to this grudge all these have gave beatings to me and Sahil. Gave injuries because Gagandeep felt sorry in the presence of Sahil and Harpreet which was the cause of anger. Due to this reason injuries were given. Statement got recorded, is correct, action be taken. Sd/- Satwinder Singh” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the injury on the left wrist of Sahil, injured, which led to the addition of the offence under Section 118 (2) of B.N.S is not attributed to the present petitioner. Rather, the said injury is attributed to Karam Singh, co-accused. Even, the main dispute HITESH 2025.05.08 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-14273-2025 -3 was between Gagandeep Singh @ Money and Sahil and due to said enmity, injuries were caused to Sahil. Thus, no motive has been alleged against the present petitioner in the present case. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 29.09.2024 and is in custody for the last about seven months. The challan has already been presented against him and 06 witnesses out of total 21 witnesses have been examined so far. He further contends that the complainant has already been examined in the present case and there are no chances of tampering with the prosecution evidence in the present case. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 6. It is not in dispute that the injuries caused by the petitioner were simple in nature. Even, the grievous injuries were allegedly caused by Karam Singh, co-accused, who is already in custody. The prosecution has been able to only examine 06 witnesses only out of total 21 witnesses so far and the conclusion of the trial may take quite a long time. 7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail pending trial on his furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 08.05.2025 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2025.05.08 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh