CRM-M No.32375 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 204 CRM-M No.32375 of 2025 Date of Decision :18.06.2025 Jaspreet Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (Oral) : This is the first petition, preferred under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in FIR No.25, dated 10.03.2025, under Sections 110, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (later on added Sections 351(3)) and 238 of BNS, registered at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur. 2. On the statement of one Sukhchain Singh, the instant FIR was registered. The allegation, in essence, was that on 08.03.2025, the petitioner along with his father Ram Singh, mother Kuldeep Kaur and brother Mandeep Singh assaulted Sukhchain Singh as a result of which, he suffered injuries including a fracture on the maxillary bone. The petitioner was apprehended on 13.03.2025 and is in custody since then. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that Section 110 has wrongly been imposed as, there is no medical opinion as regards the injuries alleged to have been suffered by the complainant. He further submits that all co-accused have been granted regular bail by the trial Court itself. Learned counsel submits that the MANOJ KUMAR 2025.06.18 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.32375 of 2025 2 present petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; no recovery has to be made from him; final report already stands presented; trial will take a sufficiently long time, and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application and admitted that the final report stands submitted. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. Concededly, all the co-accused (father, mother and brother of the petitioner) have been released on bail. The petitioner is in custody since 13.03.2025. More than three months have elapsed. The applicability of Section 110 of BNS is debatable. At this stage, there is no medical opinion on record as regards injuries No.1 and 2 suffered by the complainant. Final report already stands submitted and trial will take a sufficiently long time. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. 7. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Sangrur. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 18.06.2025 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2025.06.18 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document