Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4548 (PNJ)

SARABJIT SINGH ALIAS SHABU v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/65772/2025 · 2026-01-29

Manisha Batra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-65772- IN THE H (251) SARABJIT SING STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Ms. Ms. S Mr. V MANISHA BATR 1. The p Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S Bharatiya Nyaya Bhikhiwind, Tarn 2. As pe alongwith the co unknown to the complainant-Palw thereby prompting and, then the pet thereby causing in -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH CRM Dat SINGH @ SHABU Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS s. Rahi Mehra, Advocate for the pe Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the co ****  BATRA, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh f regular bail in case arising out of nder Sections 117(1), 118, 324, 333, 3 Nyaya Sanhita, 20232 (for short , Tarn Taran. As per the allegations on the night he co-accused Kashmir Kaur, Gurdit o the complainant criminally trespa Palwinder Singh. The accused-Kash mpting the petitioner and other co-ac he petitioner and others opened an sing injuries to him with their respect JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-65772-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.01.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA  the petitioner the complainant preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.94 dated 31.08.2024 333, 3(5), 109, 118(2) and 117(2) of short “BNS”) at Police Station night of 12.08.2024, the petitioner Gurdit Singh and 4-5 more persons trespassed into the house of the Kashmir Kaur made an exhortation accused to kill the complainant d an assault upon the complainant espective weapons which they were  nder ) 2024 2) of ation ioner rsons the ation inant inant were AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.29 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65772- carrying. They al raised, his uncle a from the spot. Th there for 11 da aforementioned FI Investigation now 3. It is a falsely implicated take considerable any fruitful purpo explained. No p anymore. The co parity, he too des petition deserves t 4. Status State. Learned Sta vehemently argue petitioner who by complainant there alongwith the co as well. The vic intimidating the w extended benefit deserve to be allow -2025 (O&M) 2 hey also damaged window panes of ncle and mother rushed for his rescu ot. The complainant was taken to ho 11 days. On the basis of statem FIR was registered. The petitione n now stands completed. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. He is in custody si erable time to conclude. His further purpose. There is delay in lodging o No purpose would be served by t he co-accused Gurdit Singh has been deserves to be released on bail. It erves to be allowed. Status report and custody certificate h ed State counsel assisted by learned c argued that there are serious and sp ho by using a datar had struck blow t thereby causing him grievous inj e co-accused had inflicted other injur he victim sustained 22 injuries. The the witnesses or committing simila nefit of bail. It is, therefore, stress e allowed. es of his house. On clamour being s rescue and then the assailants fled n to hospital and remained admitted statement recorded by him, the titioner was arrested on 24.07.2025. l for the petitioner that he has been tody since 24.07.2025. The trial will urther incarceration would not serve ging of the FIR which has not been by the detaining him in custody s been extended benefit of bail. On ail. It is, therefore, argued that the ficate have been filed by respondent- rned counsel for the complainant has and specific allegations against the blows on the right shoulder of the injuries. Apart from that he r injuries on the person of the victim . There are chances of petitioner’s similar offences or absconding, if stressed that the petition does not eing fled itted the 025. been l will serve been tody . On t the - t has t the f the t he ictim s g, if s not AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.29 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65772- 5. The p accused is allege complainant on th grievous injuries t his property was injuries that had b to life, though so allegations prima against the petition obviously take tim so far. The co-acc On parity, he too d and cross-version this case. Taking well settled propo exception and pre sentencing, this C petitioner would n is allowed and the his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 6. It is construed as an ex shall not influence -2025 (O&M) 3 The petitioner in furtherance of his c alleged to have criminally trespas t on the fateful night and is allegedly uries to the complainant. As per the was also damaged by the petition had been attributed to him, however, gh some of the injuries have been o prima facie make out a case for comm etitioner, however, he is in custody si ke time to conclude since no prosecuti accused has already been extended e too deserves to be released on bail. ersion and it is only a matter of trial a aking into consideration the above di proposition of law to the effect that nd pre-trial incarceration should not his Court is of the considered opinio ould not serve any meaningful purpos nd the petitioner is ordered to be relea g personal as well as surety bonds to hief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistr It is clarified that the observation an expression of opinion of this Cour luence the outcome of the trial in any m f his common intention with the co- trespassed into the house of the dly have caused simple as well as er the allegations of the complainant etitioner and the co-accused. The ever, is not opined to be dangerous been opined to be so. Though the r commission of subject offences as tody since 24.07.2025. The trial will osecution witness has been examined tended benefit of bail by this Court. bail. Moreso, it is a case of version trial as to who was the aggressor in ove discussed facts coupled with the ct that bail is the rule and jail is an d not be replica of post-conviction opinion that further detention of the purpose. Accordingly, the petitioner e released on regular bail, subject to to the satisfaction of the learned agistrate concerned.  vations made above shall not be s Court on the merits of the case and n any manner.  - the ll as inant The rous the es as l will ined ourt. rsion or in h the is an ction f the ioner ct to rned t be and AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.29 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65772- 7. Since any, is rendered in 29.01.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes    een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No  n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.29 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.