CRM-M-5066-2026 and CRM-M-19986-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 212 CRM-M-5066-2026 Shabibi . . .Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . .Respondent(s) 222 CRM-M-19986-2026 Hanif Mohammad and Another . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . .Respondent(s) Decided on : 20.05 .2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Harsh Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. By way of this common order, both the aforementioned petitions are being disposed of. 2. Petition i.e. CRM-M-5066-2026 has been filed by petitioner- Shabibi, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.107 dated 27.09.2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station Sadar Pathankot, District Pathankot. PREETI 2026.05.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5066-2026 and CRM-M-19986-2026 2 2.1 Petition i.e. CRM-M-19986-2026 has been filed by petitioners-Hanif Mohammad and Mureed Deen @ Juman seeking regular bail in case FIR No.107 dated 27.09.2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station Sadar Pathankot, District Pathankot. 3. FIR is got registered by one complainant Rakesh Singh son of Balwant Singh (deceased in the present case) for the incident in question, which took place on 27.09.2025 at about 2:00 PM. As per allegations, complainant had gone to the fields to give meal to his father. On reaching in the fields, complainant noticed that accused-Shabibi, armed with stick, Mureed Deen @ Juman, armed with dattari, were attacking his father Balwant Singh, in a chaan. Accused Mureed Deen @ Juman gave a dattari blow on his hand, right eyebrow and also on left bicep on the backside of right elbow of the deceased. Accused-Shabibi gave consecutive blows with stick on ribs, back and other parts of the body of the deceased. Accused-Hanif Mohammad, while being present there on the spot held arms of the deceased and at that time, Shabibi strangulated the neck of deceased with her hands. On raising alarm by the complainant, all the accused ran away from the spot. 4. Counsel refers to the post-mortem report dated 28.09.2025, wherein no such injuries have been detailed in the FIR, by the complainant. For reference, said injuries are noticed hereinbelow :- PREETI 2026.05.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5066-2026 and CRM-M-19986-2026 3 Sr. No. Injury details 1. Abrasion with dimension 5.2 X 2.3 cm over left arm 2. Abrasion with dimension 2.2 X 0.5 cm over right elbow 3. Redness over left ear 5. Counsel also refers that in fact, deceased was aged 80 years and he has died due to his own heart problem and to confirm this aspect, he refers to the column No.4, wherein following is recorded :- Heart A large yellow patch over anterior surface of heart visible with hypertrophy noted in left ventricle sent for chemical examination 6. Further, points out that except the two abrasions that too on left arm and right elbow, no other injury was noticed by the doctors, at the time of post-mortem examination. Had any weapon like dattari been used in the incident by the accused, definitely there would have been some incised injuries on the person of the deceased. Further, submits that the allegation of strangulating the deceased by accused-Shabibi is also not found confirmed with any medical evidence. Even no cause of death could be ascertained because no viscera report is received till date from chemical examiner. Further, argues that had complainant been present there on the spot, he would have taken some required steps for safeguarding his own father, but no such sign is found on the spot, nor it is so alleged in the FIR by him. PREETI 2026.05.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5066-2026 and CRM-M-19986-2026 4 7. Considering, the aspect that whether the FIR was registered by an eye-witness only by positing himself as an eye-witness, is yet to be confirmed by the trial Court. 8. In view of the aforementioned, both the petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their 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. 9. Any of the discussion done and recorded hereinabove, 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. Both petitions stand disposed of. 11. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 20.05.2026 Preeti S. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No PREETI 2026.05.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document