CRM-M-45205-2025 -1- 248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-45205-2025 Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Binder Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Charanjit Singh Bahia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner has approached by way of filing the present second petition praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.206 dated 18.09.2023 under Sections 302, 458, 323, 427, 436, 148, 149, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. 2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Simarjeet Singh @ Sikandar Singh @ Shambhu. It was alleged that on 13.09.2023, at about 9:30 p.m., he had gone to his village in connection with some work. However when he reached Gurudwara, then Kalu son of Major Singh and Karmu @ Coach son of Gurjant Singh started beating him. He was shifted to Civil Hospital Talwandi Sabo. Later on, in the night at about 10:30 p.m., Kalu, Karmu @ Coach along with 3-4 other unknown persons went to his house. Then Kalu and Karmu armed with iron rods trespassed in their house where his aged parents were present. His mother, namely, Charanjit Kaur, informed him that on entering the house, both of them had badly attacked his father, Lal Singh, who was lying in the courtyard and serious injuries were caused to him. His father was shifted to the Hospital. Request was made to take legal action against the culprits. On registration of the FIR, the SHARMILA DEVI 2025.08.25 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment PHHC CRM-M-45205-2025 -2- investigation commenced. During the treatment, Lal Singh succumbed to the injuries on 21.09.2023 and thus, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added. The complicity of the petitioner surfaced during the investigation on the supplementary statement of complainant dated 24.09.2023 and thus he was arrested on 04.12.2023. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of the charges, the trial Court commenced with the trial. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda praying for the grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda declined the petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 14.05.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-45684-2024, however, the same was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 05.12.2024. Hence the petitioner has again approached this Court by way of filing the present second petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity with that of the co- accused, namely, Gurdeep Singh. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 29.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-63835-2024, whereby, co- accused Gurdeep Singh has been granted regular bail by this Court. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.12.2023. He submits that on the basis of the parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail as the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the said co-accused, who has already been granted bail. 4. Learned State counsel has endorsed the factum of grant of bail to the co-accused of the petitioner as stated above and has not denied that the SHARMILA DEVI 2025.08.25 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment PHHC CRM-M-45205-2025 -3- petitioner is at par with the co-accused, namely, Gurdeep Singh. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner is behind bars since 04.12.2023. Co-accused, namely, Gurdeep Singh is on bail and the case of the petitioner as stated is at par with him. Custody certificate of the petitioner shows that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 08 months & 18 days as on 25.08.2025. It further reflects that though the petitioner faced prosecution in one more FIR, however, he has been acquitted in the same 6. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 7. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 25.08.2025 JUDGE sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SHARMILA DEVI 2025.08.25 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment PHHC