CRM-M-54388- IN THE H (222) GURSEWAK SIN STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Sections 30 and 27 of Arms Ac 2. The recorded by comp and the co-accuse for the purpose o Rs.27,000/-. An petitioner and the at the time of retu -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH K SINGH Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate fo Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ail in case arising out of FIR No.15 ns 307, 506, 34, 427 and 201 of Indi rms Act, 1959 at Police Station Gharin The aforementioned FIR was registe complainant Wazir Singh alleging tha accused Harmanpreet Singh had taken pose of some bhog ceremony. The . An amount of Rs.11,000/- was p d the co-accused did not pay the outs of returning of articles and had given JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-54388-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
ate for the petitioner by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 152 dated 19.06.2024 registered f Indian Penal Code and Section 25 Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural. registered on the basis of statement ing that on 17.06.2024, the petitioner taken some articles from his shop The rent was fixed at the rate of was paid by the petitioner. The e outstanding amount of Rs.16,000/- given a cheque of that amount. The M) 2026 oner
dent
ction grant tered n 25 ment ioner shop te of The - The AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-54388- complainant had place between the and co-accused firing shots with fi one bullet hit the clamour being ra registration of FIR arrested and in cu subsequently. Inv 3. It is a falsely implicated been given a crim There is no medic had sustained an examined. He is prosecution witne Singh has already extended the same purpose. It is, the bail. 4. Status counsel has argued since he was the injuring the wife o -2025 (O&M) 2 t had refused to accept the same and en them. On the intervening night of sed came to the house of the compl with firearms. Two shots hit the glass it the right arm of his wife, who was ing raised by them, the assailants of FIR, investigation proceedings wer in custody since 11.11.2024. The Investigation now stands completed s argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case on account of som a criminal colour. A false recovery medical evidence on record to show th ed any firearm injury. She had n He is in custody for a period of over witness has been examined so far. lready been extended benefit of bail. O e same benefit. His further incarcerati is, therefore, argued that the petition Status report and custody certificate h argued that the allegations against the as the main culprit, who had fired wife of the complainant. There are c e and verbal altercation had taken ight of 18/19.06.2024, the petitioner complainant. The petitioner started e glass of window of the kitchen and ho was working in the kitchen. On ilants fled from the spot. After gs were initiated. The petitioner was The co-accused was also arrested pleted. l for the petitioner that he has been f some monetary dispute which has covery has been planted upon him. how that the wife of the complainant had not even been medico-legally f over 01 year and 02 months. No far. The co-accused Harmanpreet bail. On parity, he too deserve to be rceration would not serve any useful etitioner deserves to be released on icate have been filed. Learned State st the petitioner are serious in nature fired shot with the pistol, thereby e are chances of his intimidating the aken ioner arted and On After was ested been has him. inant gally No preet to be seful d on State ature reby g the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-54388- material witnesses is, therefore, stress 5. This counsel for the par 6. The p into verbal alterca 18/19.06.2024, he house of the com injuries to the wi evidence to show petitioner is in cus fruitful purpose is Even otherwise pr sentencing. It is w the nature of the a him in the cust circumstances, thi made out a case petitioner is ordere surety bonds to Magistrate/Duty M 7. In the petitioner, it shal application seekin -2025 (O&M) 3 nesses or committing similar offences , stressed that the petition does not des This Court has heard the rival subm the parties at considerable length. The petitioner alongwith the co-accu altercation with the complainant and th 24, he alongwith the co-accused is alle e complainant, damaged his propert the wife of the complainant. Howe show that the victim had in fact sus in custody for over a period of 01 yea ose is going to be served by detain ise pre-trial incarceration shall not b It is well settled that bail is the rule a f the allegations as leveled against the custody, his clean antecedents a es, this Court is of the considered o case for grant of bail. As such the ordered to be released on bail, subject s to the satisfaction of the learne uty Magistrate concerned. In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent to seeking cancellation of bail. fences, if extended benefit of bail. It ot deserve to be allowed. ubmissions made by the learned accused is alleged to have entered and then on the intervening night of is alleged to have entered inside the roperty and further caused firearm However, there is no medico-legal act sustained any such injury. The 01 year, 02 months and 25 days. No detaining him in custody anymore. l not be a replica of post-conviction rule and jail is an exception. Given st the petitioner, the period spent by ents and the attendant facts and ered opinion that the petitioner has the petitioner is allowed and the ubject to his furnishing personal and learned trial Court/Chief Judicial y FIR/complaint lodged against the dent to seek redressal by filing an il. It rned tered ht of e the earm legal The No ore. ction iven nt by and r has d the l and icial t the g an AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-54388- 8. It is, shall not be constr shall not influence 9. Since any, is rendered in 06.02.2026 Amit Sharma


-2025 (O&M) 4 It is, however, clarified that the ob construed as an expression of opinion luence the outcome of the trial. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

the observations made hereinabove pinion on the merits of the case and een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
bove and n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.