CRM-M-72219- IN THE H (127) SARABJIT SING STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S Mr. V MANISHA BATR 1. The regular bail in ca under Sections 333 Nyaya Sanhita, Amritsar Rural. 2. The a got recorded by th husband Bau Sing and was admitted sleeping in her ho -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH SINGH ALIAS SABA ALIAS SHA Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the pet Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the c **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been preferre in case arising out of FIR No.0244 ns 333, 326(g), 115(2), 324(4), 324(5 hita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) at Po The aforementioned FIR was registe d by the complainant Shindi Kaur all u Singh was assaulted by Nikka Sing mitted in Civil Hospital, Ajnala. On her house, the petitioner accompanied JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-72219-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.03.2026 SHABA SINGH ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA the petitioner r the complainant referred by the petitioner for grant of 244 dated 18.09.2025 registered 324(5), 191(3) and 190 of Bharatiya at Police Station Ajnala, District registered on the basis of statement aur alleging that on 13.09.2025, her a Singh. He had sustained injuries . On the same night, when she was panied by the co-accused and 20/25 M) 2026 oner dent nt of tered atiya strict ment , her uries was 0/25 AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72219- unknown persons weapons and hurl they started exten their house and co petitioner and the house, set fire to boundary wall an Rs.1,50,000/- from place between Nik 3. After The petitioner w Investigation now 4. It is a falsely implicated version and cross There is no medi members had sus instance of the pet for further investig in lodging the FIR It is, therefore, arg 5. Per co complainant has -2025 (O&M) 2 ersons forcibly entered inside her ho d hurled abuses to her family membe extending beatings to them. To sav and concealed themselves in the hou the co-accused had damaged the h fire to her clothing, bedding and o all and also took away gold orna from her house. The reason was t en Nikka and her son Major Singh. After registration of FIR, investigatio ner was arrested on 27.09.2025 an n now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case on false and gener cross-version. No specific overt ac medico-legal report to show that the ad sustained any injury. No recov the petitioner. He is in custody since nvestigation. His antecedents are clea he FIR. His continued detention would re, argued that the petition deserves to Per contra, learned State counsel assi t has argued that the allegations ag her house. They were armed with embers and herself. On resistance, To save themselves, they fled from e house of their neighbourers. The d the household articles kept in her and other articles; demolished the d ornaments and cash amount of was that a minor scuffle had taken stigation proceedings were initiated. 25 and is in custody since then. l for the petitioner that he has been general allegations. It is a case of vert act has been attributed to him. hat the complainant and her family recovery has been effected at the since 27.09.2025. He is not required re clean. There is a delay of 05 days would not serve any useful purpose. ves to be allowed. assisted by learned counsel for the ns against the petitioner are quite with ance, from The her the t of aken ated. then. been se of him. mily t the uired days pose. r the quite AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72219- serious in nature, the complainant, assembly and bea deserve to be exten 6. This C for the parties at co 7. The unlawful assembly thereof, entered in family members a been sustained by FIR, however, no since 27.09.2025 No recovery has b of law that pre- sentencing. The o trial, and it canno nature of the alleg him and the circ considered opinio Accordingly, the p on bail subject t -2025 (O&M) 3 ature, as he alongwith unknown perso , damaged the house of the compl d beaten them. It is, therefore, argue e extended benefit of bail. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have sembly with the co-accused and in p ered into the house of the complain bers and herself and damaged her ho ed by the complainant party. Thoug er, no specific overt act has been attrib 2025. There are no chances of conclu has been effected from the petitioner -trial incarceration should not be The object of the jail is to secure app cannot be preventive or punitive. e allegations as levelled against the p e circumstances as peculiar to this opinion that the petitioner has made o , the petition is allowed and the petiti ject to his furnishing personal as n persons trespassed the property of complainant by forming an unlawful , argued that the petitioner does not ubmissions made by learned counsel have formed membership of an d in prosecution of common object plainant, extended beatings to her her house. However, no injury has Though, he has been named in the n attributed to him. He is in custody conclusion of trial in the near future. itioner. It is well settled proposition not be a replica of post-conviction re appearance of the accused during tive. Taking into consideration the t the petitioner, the part attributed to to this case, this Court is of the made out a case for release on bail. e petitioner is ordered to be released al as well as surety bonds to the ty of wful s not unsel f an bject her has n the tody . ition ction uring the ed to the bail. ased the AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72219- satisfaction of the concerned. 8. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 9. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 10. Since any, is rendered in 24.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 of the learned trial Court/Chief Judici In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No trate t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.