CRM-M-21966- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (239) PARDEEP SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The Section 483 of Bharatiya seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.63 dated 06.05.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 35 of Bharatiya Nyaya added later on) at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. petition bearing CRM 11.03.2026. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Jaswant alongwith his friend Suraj was standing near Sheetla Mata Mandir of his village, when the present petitioner accompanied by the co their respective vehicles. He asked the complainant to enter into a compromise -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision : PARDEEP SINGH Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.63 dated 06.05.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 351(3), 191(3), 190 and 61(2) Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) added later on) at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. bearing CRM-M-12024-2026 had been dismissed as withdrawn o The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Jaswant Gir alleging therein that on 28.04.2025, he alongwith his friend Suraj was standing near Sheetla Mata Mandir of his village, ent petitioner accompanied by the co their respective vehicles. He asked the complainant to enter into a compromise IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21966-2026 (O&M) Date of decision :16.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab one is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.63 dated 06.05.2025 1(2), 351(3), 191(3), 190 and 61(2) Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) (Section 118(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. His previous had been dismissed as withdrawn on The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement Gir alleging therein that on 28.04.2025, he alongwith his friend Suraj was standing near Sheetla Mata Mandir of his village, ent petitioner accompanied by the co-accused reached there on their respective vehicles. He asked the complainant to enter into a compromise one is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.63 dated 06.05.2025 1(2), 351(3), 191(3), 190 and 61(2) (Section 118(2) of BNS revious n The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement Gir alleging therein that on 28.04.2025, he alongwith his friend Suraj was standing near Sheetla Mata Mandir of his village, accused reached there on their respective vehicles. He asked the complainant to enter into a compromise AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21966- with a co-village Paramjit Singh @ Pam with whom the complainant had quarrelled some time back. In the meanwhile, some motorbikes. Their faces were covered and they were armed with weapons. The petitioner opened an assault upon the complainant by striking a blow with datar on his head. Accused and accused Kirandeep Singh @ Yoyo gave blow from reverse side of the kirpan on his abdomen. Their accomplices hurled abuses and made exhortations. The complainant became unconscious and was rushed to hos by his companions. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The injury sustained by the complainant at the hands of the petitioner was opined to be grievous added. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 08.01.2026. Investigation now stands concluded. 3. It is falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. He is n for further investigation. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. Each day spent in custody gives him a fresh ground to seek concession of bail extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the said benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel report has vehemently argued that there are serious allegations against the -2026 (O&M) 2 village Paramjit Singh @ Pam with whom the complainant had quarrelled some time back. In the meanwhile, some motorbikes. Their faces were covered and they were armed with weapons. The petitioner opened an assault upon the complainant by striking a blow with on his head. Accused-Paramjit Singh @ Pam struck blow on his left hand and accused Kirandeep Singh @ Yoyo gave blow from reverse side of the on his abdomen. Their accomplices hurled abuses and made exhortations. The complainant became unconscious and was rushed to hos by his companions. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The injury sustained by the complainant at the hands of the petitioner was opined to be grievous in nature. Offence under Section 118(2) of BNS was ing the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on Investigation now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. He is n for further investigation. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. Each day spent in custody gives him a fresh ek concession of bail afresh. The co extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the said It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel report has vehemently argued that there are serious allegations against the village Paramjit Singh @ Pam with whom the complainant had quarrelled some time back. In the meanwhile, 5-6 persons reached there on some motorbikes. Their faces were covered and they were armed with weapons. The petitioner opened an assault upon the complainant by striking a blow with Paramjit Singh @ Pam struck blow on his left hand and accused Kirandeep Singh @ Yoyo gave blow from reverse side of the on his abdomen. Their accomplices hurled abuses and made exhortations. The complainant became unconscious and was rushed to hospital by his companions. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The injury sustained by the complainant at the hands of the petitioner in nature. Offence under Section 118(2) of BNS was ing the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on Investigation now stands concluded. argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. Each day spent in custody gives him a fresh The co-accused has already been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the said It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has vehemently argued that there are serious allegations against the village Paramjit Singh @ Pam with whom the complainant had 6 persons reached there on some motorbikes. Their faces were covered and they were armed with weapons. The petitioner opened an assault upon the complainant by striking a blow with Paramjit Singh @ Pam struck blow on his left hand and accused Kirandeep Singh @ Yoyo gave blow from reverse side of the on his abdomen. Their accomplices hurled abuses and made pital by his companions. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The injury sustained by the complainant at the hands of the petitioner in nature. Offence under Section 118(2) of BNS was ing the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been ot required for further investigation. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. Each day spent in custody gives him a fresh accused has already been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the said while relying upon the status report has vehemently argued that there are serious allegations against the AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21966- petitioner. He had caused as many as 03 injuries on the person of the complainant one of which has been opined to be grievous in nature. This petition being a successive one is not maintainable. The allegations against the petitioner are more serious than the co of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court for the parties at considerable length. 6. So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is day spent by an accused in custody provides a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. indefinite period and the bail applic repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a condition that the prosecution must press for early completion of the trial. is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as w person of the complainant. The grievous injury has been attributed to him. The allegations make out a against him. However, he has been in custody for more than six mont trial will take considerable time to conclude since no prosecution witness has -2026 (O&M) 3 petitioner. He had caused as many as 03 injuries on the person of the complainant one of which has been opined to be grievous in nature. This on being a successive one is not maintainable. The allegations against the petitioner are more serious than the co-accused, who has been extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to essive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to be noted that every day spent by an accused in custody provides a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. He cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period and the bail application can be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a condition that the prosecution must press for early completion of the trial. The petitioner alongwith the co is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as w person of the complainant. The grievous injury has been attributed to him. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences against him. However, he has been in custody for more than six mont trial will take considerable time to conclude since no prosecution witness has petitioner. He had caused as many as 03 injuries on the person of the complainant one of which has been opined to be grievous in nature. This on being a successive one is not maintainable. The allegations against the accused, who has been extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to essive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the made out or not. It is also required to be noted that every day spent by an accused in custody provides a new cause of action for filing a He cannot be kept in custody for ation can be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a condition that the prosecution must The petitioner alongwith the co-accused is alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries on the person of the complainant. The grievous injury has been attributed to him. The case for commission of subject offences against him. However, he has been in custody for more than six months. The trial will take considerable time to conclude since no prosecution witness has petitioner. He had caused as many as 03 injuries on the person of the complainant one of which has been opined to be grievous in nature. This on being a successive one is not maintainable. The allegations against the accused, who has been extended benefit has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to essive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the made out or not. It is also required to be noted that every day spent by an accused in custody provides a new cause of action for filing a He cannot be kept in custody for ation can be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a condition that the prosecution must accused ell as grievous injuries on the person of the complainant. The grievous injury has been attributed to him. The case for commission of subject offences hs. The trial will take considerable time to conclude since no prosecution witness has AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21966- been examined so far. The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre incarceration should not be replica of post the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to be released on bail subject to to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions : (i) inducement, facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court (iii) of hearing. (iv) well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the sam informing the trial Court. -2026 (O&M) 4 been examined so far. The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre incarceration should not be replica of post-conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions : (i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court (iii) The petitioner shall appear before each and every date of hearing. (iv) The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the sam informing the trial Court. been examined so far. The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. The well settled of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions :- The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any The petitioner shall not leave the country under any circumstance without permission of the learned trial Court. The petitioner shall appear before each and every date The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without been examined so far. The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. His The well settled trial conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for and the petitioner is ordered his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case in any The petitioner shall not leave the country under any The petitioner shall appear before each and every date The petitioner shall provide his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time e without AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21966- (v) PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. (vi) the learned trial Court. 7. It is mad the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 16.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 5 (v) The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. (vi) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the learned trial Court. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been allowed any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times. The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with e clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing allowed pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No The petitioner shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with e clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.