CRM-M-51717-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 CRM-M-51717-2025 Decided on :08.07.2026 Dildar Khar @ Dilbar Khan . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Manoj Singh Gujral, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 69 dated 18.07.2024, under Sections 118(2), 115(2), 126(1), 351(3), 324(4), 190(3) and 190 of BNS, registered at Police Station Banur, District Patiala. 2. Brief facts of the case are that present FIR was registered on the statement of complainant-Harpreet Singh, who alleged that on 16.07.2024, after he requested present petitioner and his companions to lower the volume of loud music being played near his office, they left the spot but, later in the night, returned along with several other persons armed with gandasis, kirpans, sticks and other deadly weapons. It is alleged that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the complainant's office, and assaulted the complainant and his brother, RASHMI 2026.07.09 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51717-2025 2 Lakhwinder Singh, causing injuries to both of them. It is further alleged that the accused also damaged the vehicles of the complainant and his brother parked outside the office and extended threats of dire consequences before fleeing from the spot. Injured were initially taken to Civil Hospital, Dera Bassi, and were thereafter referred to PGI, Chandigarh and subsequently to GMCH-32, Chandigarh for treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, present FIR came to be registered against the accused persons 3. On the previous date of hearing, i.e. 04.05.2026, matter was adjourned to today after observing that present petitioner-Dildar Khan @ Dilbar Khan, had been attributed a specific role in the FIR i.e. of, inflicting a sword blow which allegedly resulted in the slicing of two fingers of the complainant. Accordingly, it was directed that the injured witnesses be examined at the first instance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copies of the zimni orders dated 18.05.2026, 01.06.2026, 15.06.2026, 17.06.2026 and 01.07.2026. He submits that despite granting five effective opportunities by the learned trial Court, injured witnesses, namely, Harpreet Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, have not entered the witness box. It is contended that their repeated non-appearance has resulted in unnecessary delay in the progress of the trial. Learned counsel further submits that on the occasions when the injured witnesses were duly served and appeared before the learned trial Court, they themselves RASHMI 2026.07.09 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51717-2025 3 sought adjournments, which clearly indicates that the delay in the trial is attributable to the prosecution and not to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.02.2025 and has undergone incarceration for a period of one year, four months and nine days without any progress in the examination of the material witnesses. He further submits that co- accused- Prabhjot Singh @ Paras has been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 21.08.2025, whereas another co-accused-Amanjot Singh @ Aman, has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2025 passed in CRM-M- 11271-2025. On the grounds of prolonged incarceration, delay in the trial, and parity with the co-accused, learned counsel prays for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that the petitioner has been specifically attributed the role of inflicting a sword blow upon the complainant, resulting in the slicing of two fingers of his right hand. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and he was an active participant in the unlawful assembly which brutally assaulted the complainant and his brother. Learned State counsel, therefore, contends that merely on account of the period of custody or the grant of bail to the co-accused, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail and prays for dismissal of the present petition. RASHMI 2026.07.09 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51717-2025 4 7. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds merit in the prayer for grant of regular bail. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be made a ground to continue his incarceration, particularly when despite opportunities being granted by this Court, the injured witnesses have not been examined before the learned trial Court. It is also a matter of record that on certain occasions, even after their appearance before the learned trial Court, injured witnesses themselves sought adjournments. The reason for seeking such adjournments by the injured witnesses is a question to which this Court has no answer, except to draw an inference that the delay in recording their evidence cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, the stage of the trial, the non-examination of the material witnesses despite opportunities, and the fact that the co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. RASHMI 2026.07.09 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51717-2025 5 9. Any of the discussion done and recorded hereabove, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 10. Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 08.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.07.09 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document