IN THE 124 (2 cases) 1. CRM-M-63685 Sukhwinder Singh State of Punjab 2. CRM-M-70148 Sandeep Kumar State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. in CRM Mr. in CRM Mr. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Both No.0129 dated 16.08.2025 191(3) of the Bharatiya District Fazilka having regular bail, are hence 2. For M-63685-2025 titled Punjab”. 3. According Kumar, who is 06.08.2025, at about THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-63685 CRM-M-70148 Date of decision: 63685-2025(O&M) Singh @ Sukha @ Alian VERSUS 70148-2025(O&M) @ Sandeep Singh VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD . Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate CRM-M-63685-2025. Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate for the CRM-M-70148-2025. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab. ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) Both these petitions, arising out of 16.08.2025 registered under Sections Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police having been filed by two different hence decided by a common order. the facility of reference, facts are titled as “Sukhwinder Singh @ According to the allegations in the in the business of supplying RO about 09:00 PM he was clearing the PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 63685-2025(O&M) 70148-2025(O&M) decision: 17.03.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondent ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Advocate for the petitioner the petitioner . of the same case bearing FIR Sections 110, 333, 115(2), 190, Police Station Khuian Sarwar, different accused for seeking grant of order. are being referred to from CRM- Sukha @ Alian Vs. State of FIR, the complainant-Angrej RO water, informed that on the water tank outside his house SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.18 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 124-2 CRM-M-63685-2025(O&M) CRM-M-70148-2025(O&M) and his wife was boiling milk while their minor son was lying on the cot. At about 09:45 PM, they heard noise of ‘Mar Ditta Mar Ditta’ from the bus stand side and Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha @ Alian (petitioner in CRM-M-63685- 2025) forcibly entered the house and bolted the gate from inside. The other party which comprised of Happy, Anmol, Kaka Singh, Gajjan Singh, Ravi, Kuljit Singh, Karamjit Singh @ Karmu, Sarabit Singh alongwith 4-5 unidentified persons started chasing Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha @ Alian on their motorcycles and they started pushing the gate. Some persons were armed with deadly weapons. When they did not open the gate, the other party started hurling stones, one of which hit the minor child of the complainant who was lying on the cot thus causing severe injury to him making out a case under Section 110 BNS. The accused thereafter fled away from the spot. 4. Counsel for the petitioner-Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha @ Alian contends that as a matter of fact, the other co-accused were trying to kill the petitioner and were chasing him. In order to save his life, the petitioner entered into the house of the complainant and bolted the gate from inside oblivious of the fact that accused persons would start pelting stones. No overt act of any injury having been caused by the petitioner to any person has been attributed and the only offence attracted against him is of having entered into the house but the said entry was in a bid to save his own life rather than to cause injury to any other person. 5. Counsel for the petitioner-Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Singh contends that there is no specific attribution against the petitioner and that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. He further contends that the said petitioner has no criminal antecedents. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.18 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 124-2 CRM-M-63685-2025(O&M) CRM-M-70148-2025(O&M) 6. It is argued by both the counsel for the petitioners that while petitioner-Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha @ Alian is in custody since 24.08.2025, petitioner-Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Singh is in custody since 15.09.2025 and that there are total 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution out of which none has been examined so far. 7. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid facts. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition. 9. Taking into consideration the facts as aforesaid, the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, the period of custody already undergone by them as well as the stage of the trial, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petitions. 10. The instant petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 11. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. 12. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 17.03.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.18 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document