CRM-M-44725 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 231 Baljit Singh State of Punjab Coram : Present: Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. 1. replaced with Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner during pendency of the trial in case registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190 of the BNS, 2023 (Sections 117(2) and 238 of the BNS, 2023 added later on), at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural. 2. registered on the statement of complainant Gurwinder Singh, wherein it wa alleged that on 20.12.2024, there was a Kabaddi after watching Parminder Singh were returning their homes. However, they were waylaid by a Scorpio car, in which with baseball armed with iron rod, Baljit Singh (petitioner herein) armed with Hockey and Gulwant Singh armed with a wooden stick were there in the c 44725-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus Punjab Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Sarabjit Singh Cheema, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for the complainant. **** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section replaced with Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner during pendency of the trial in case registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190 of the BNS, 2023 ions 117(2) and 238 of the BNS, 2023 added later on), at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the FIR in question was registered on the statement of complainant Gurwinder Singh, wherein it wa alleged that on 20.12.2024, there was a Kabaddi watching the tournament, he along with his friend Parminder Singh were returning their homes. However, they were waylaid by a Scorpio car, in which his co-villager Jagmohan Singh alias Mohna armed with baseball bat, Manvir Singh armed with sword, armed with iron rod, Baljit Singh (petitioner herein) armed with Hockey and Gulwant Singh armed with a wooden stick were there in the c - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-44725-2023 Decided on:22.08.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent Rajesh Bhardwaj Sarabjit Singh Cheema, Advocate, Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., now replaced with Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner during pendency of the trial in case FIR No.200 dated 21.12.2024, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190 of the BNS, 2023 ions 117(2) and 238 of the BNS, 2023 added later on), at Police Station Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the FIR in question was registered on the statement of complainant Gurwinder Singh, wherein it wa alleged that on 20.12.2024, there was a Kabaddi tournament in their village and the tournament, he along with his friends Sandeep Singh and Parminder Singh were returning their homes. However, they were waylaid by villager Jagmohan Singh alias Mohna armed , Manvir Singh armed with sword, Arvinder Singh @ Gora armed with iron rod, Baljit Singh (petitioner herein) armed with Hockey and Gulwant Singh armed with a wooden stick were there in the car. They came ...Petitioner ...Respondent 439 Cr.P.C., now replaced with Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the FIR No.200 dated 21.12.2024, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190 of the BNS, 2023 ions 117(2) and 238 of the BNS, 2023 added later on), at Police Station Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the FIR in question was registered on the statement of complainant Gurwinder Singh, wherein it was ournament in their village and Sandeep Singh and Parminder Singh were returning their homes. However, they were waylaid by villager Jagmohan Singh alias Mohna armed Gora armed with iron rod, Baljit Singh (petitioner herein) armed with Hockey and ar. They came VINOD KUMAR 2025.08.27 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44725 out of the car and Baljit Singh exhorted others to teach them a lesson. On this, they started bea Hockey blow on the head of Parminder. Thereafter, he gave another Hockey blow on the head of Sandeep. On raising alarm, all of them escaped from the scene of occurrence. The injured were shifted to the hospital. The request was made to take legal action against all the culprits. On registration of the FIR, the investigation comme arrested on 26.03.2025. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, sides, the learned Court declined the same vide order Hence, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by of filing the present petition. 3. the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present ca the present case is a case of version and cross version, wherein both the sides had suffered multiple injuries. It is submitted that the investigating agencies have conducted the investigation in a biased manner as the accused in th cross-version have not even five injuries suffered by the complainant side, the petitioner has not been attributed any injury and, thus, no offence under Section 109 of the BNS, 2023 is made out agains complete, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial. 4. appearing on behalf of the complainant have opposed the bail application while submitting that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR, who was duly armed with a Hockey and gave blows thereof on the person of the injured 44725-2025 out of the car and Baljit Singh exhorted others to teach them a lesson. On this, they started beating them with the weapons in their hands. Baljit Singh gave a Hockey blow on the head of Parminder. Thereafter, he gave another Hockey n the head of Sandeep. On raising alarm, all of them escaped from the scene of occurrence. The injured were shifted to the hospital. The request was made to take legal action against all the culprits. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced and during investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 26.03.2025. The petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court declined the same vide order Hence, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by of filing the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present ca the present case is a case of version and cross version, wherein both the sides had suffered multiple injuries. It is submitted that the investigating agencies have conducted the investigation in a biased manner as the accused in th version have not even been arrested. He further submitted that out of the five injuries suffered by the complainant side, the petitioner has not been attributed any injury and, thus, no offence under Section 109 of the BNS, 2023 is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that since the investigation is complete, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant have opposed the bail application while submitting that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR, who was duly armed with a Hockey and gave blows thereof on the person of the injured - 2 - out of the car and Baljit Singh exhorted others to teach them a lesson. On this, ing them with the weapons in their hands. Baljit Singh gave a Hockey blow on the head of Parminder. Thereafter, he gave another Hockey n the head of Sandeep. On raising alarm, all of them escaped from the scene of occurrence. The injured were shifted to the hospital. The request was made to take legal action against all the culprits. On registration of the FIR, nced and during investigation, the petitioner was The petitioner approached the learned Additional for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court declined the same vide order dated 10.07.202 Hence, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by of Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the present case is a case of version and cross version, wherein both the sides had suffered multiple injuries. It is submitted that the investigating agencies have conducted the investigation in a biased manner as the accused in th been arrested. He further submitted that out of the five injuries suffered by the complainant side, the petitioner has not been attributed any injury and, thus, no offence under Section 109 of the BNS, 2023 t the petitioner. It is submitted that since the investigation is complete, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant have opposed the bail application while submitting that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR, who was duly armed with a Hockey and gave blows thereof on the person of the injured out of the car and Baljit Singh exhorted others to teach them a lesson. On this, ing them with the weapons in their hands. Baljit Singh gave a Hockey blow on the head of Parminder. Thereafter, he gave another Hockey n the head of Sandeep. On raising alarm, all of them escaped from the scene of occurrence. The injured were shifted to the hospital. The request was made to take legal action against all the culprits. On registration of the FIR, nced and during investigation, the petitioner was Additional for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the .07.2025. Hence, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by of Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that that the present case is a case of version and cross version, wherein both the sides had suffered multiple injuries. It is submitted that the investigating agencies have conducted the investigation in a biased manner as the accused in the been arrested. He further submitted that out of the five injuries suffered by the complainant side, the petitioner has not been attributed any injury and, thus, no offence under Section 109 of the BNS, 2023 t the petitioner. It is submitted that since the investigation is complete, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant have opposed the bail application while submitting that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR, who was duly armed with a Hockey and gave blows thereof on the person of the injured VINOD KUMAR 2025.08.27 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44725 and, thus, no case is made out deserves dismissal. 5. available record, it is deciphered that the petitioner’s presence at the place of occurrence and his active role have complainant while stating that the petitioner was not only duly armed with a Hockey but he had given blows thereof on the persons of both the injured and the injuries attributed to the petitioner have been found to be nature. The argument raised by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is behind the bars since the last five months does not entitle him for grant of regular bail at this stage as it may prejudice the trial. 6. circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for the grant of bail at this stage and hence, the present petition, being denuded of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 7. on the merits of the case. August 22, 2025 vinod* 44725-2025 and, thus, no case is made out of grant of bail and hence, the present petition deserves dismissal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is deciphered that the petitioner’s presence at the place of occurrence and his active role have duly been explained in the FIR by the complainant while stating that the petitioner was not only duly armed with a Hockey but he had given blows thereof on the persons of both the injured and the injuries attributed to the petitioner have been found to be nature. The argument raised by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is behind the bars since the last five months does not entitle him for grant of regular bail at this stage as it may prejudice the trial. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and all the attending circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for the grant of bail at this stage and hence, the present petition, being denuded of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. , 2025 Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Whether Reportable: - 3 - of grant of bail and hence, the present petition After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is deciphered that the petitioner’s presence at the place of duly been explained in the FIR by the complainant while stating that the petitioner was not only duly armed with a Hockey but he had given blows thereof on the persons of both the injured and the injuries attributed to the petitioner have been found to be grievous in nature. The argument raised by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is behind the bars since the last five months does not entitle him for grant of regular bail at this stage as it may prejudice the trial. ravity of the offence and all the attending circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for the grant of bail at this stage and hence, the present petition, being denuded of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion (Rajesh Bhardwaj) Judge Whether Speaking/Reasoned: NO/YES NO/YES of grant of bail and hence, the present petition After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is deciphered that the petitioner’s presence at the place of duly been explained in the FIR by the complainant while stating that the petitioner was not only duly armed with a Hockey but he had given blows thereof on the persons of both the injured and grievous in nature. The argument raised by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is behind the bars since the last five months does not entitle him for grant of ravity of the offence and all the attending circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not qualify for the grant of bail at this stage and hence, the present petition, Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion VINOD KUMAR 2025.08.27 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document