IN THE 216 (02 cases) 1. CRM-M- Khushpreet Singh State of Haryana 2. CRM-M- Babalpreet @ Babu State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. In CRM Mr. In CRM Mr. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Both dated 24.01.2026 109 of the Bharatiya Police Station Chandimandir, accused persons, 2. For CRM-M-27113- 3. Briefly complaint was received Kumar son of Chandimandir, District THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27113 CRM-M-27371 Date of decision: -27113-2026 Singh VERSUS Haryana -27371-2026 Babu VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD . Hamid Hussan, Advocate for the CRM-M-27113-2026. Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the CRM-M-27371-2026. Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) Both these petitions, arising out of 24.01.2026 registered under Sections 351(3), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section Chandimandir, District Panchkula persons, are hence being decided by a common For the facility of reference, facts -2026 titled ‘Khushpreet Singh Briefly summarized, the facts of received in the Police Station Chandimandir Jaspal Singh, resident of Village District Panchkula averring therein PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 27113-2026(O&M) & 27371-2026 (O&M) decision: 19.05.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondent ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ the petitioner the petitioner Haryana. the same FIR bearing No.19 351(3), 3(5), 126, 118(2), 238, Section 25 of the Arms Act at Panchkula having been filed by two common order. facts are being referred to from Vs. State of Haryana'. the present case are that a Chandimandir moved by Pradeep Village Bhareli, Police Station therein that in the evening on SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.19 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 216 (02 cases) CRM-M-27113-2026(O&M) & CRM-M-27371-2026 (O&M) 23.01.2026, his nephew Jassan son of Satnam Singh resident of Village Jassomajra, Police Station Bhadso, District Patiala along with Vivek son of Ram Singh of their village and relative Jassan resident of village Jagdholi, went to Barwala to have soup in Jassan's car bearing registration No. HR-54AY- 5799 make Swift and when they reached the government school of their village Bhareli, Ankit son of Suresh Kumar of their village, Bablu son of Lakkhi were standing on the road near the school and a boy was sitting in a white colour car and as they came near them, the boy riding that car suddenly stopped his car in the middle of the road and blocked their way. It was further averred that upon asking the boy about doing so, Ankit told the complainant to get down from the car as they had to talk to him. Complainant alleged that when he got down from the car and asked Ankit about blocking their way, then Khushi pulled his right hand and he grabbed his arm and Ankit, without giving any reason, took a knife from Babbu and stabbed him in the stomach. Seeing this, his companions immediately got out of the car to save him, then Ankit and his companions threatened to kill him and fled from the spot. After that, the complainant was taken to PHC, Barwala by his companions and from there the doctor referred him to Government Hospital Raipurani and then he was referred to Government Hospital, Sector-6 Panchkula and from there, the doctor referred him to GMCH, Sector-32 Chandigarh. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contend that the petitioners were arrested on 24.01.2026 and have already undergone an actual custody of more than 04 and a half month. It is further contended that the role attributed to petitioner-Kushpreet Singh (in CRM-M-27113-2026) is that he caught hold of injured-Pradeep from behind and the attribution against petitioner- Babalpreet @ Babu (in CRM-M-27371-2026) is to the effect that he SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.19 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 216 (02 cases) CRM-M-27113-2026(O&M) & CRM-M-27371-2026 (O&M) was wielding a knife which he handed over to Yuvraj @ Ankit who later gave an isolated knife blow to the injured-Pradeep Kumar. It is further contended that in fact the complainant-Pradeep Kumar is the Chacha of Yuvraj @ Ankit and the dispute, if any, was inter se amongst the families in which the petitioners have no role of any nature whatsoever. It is further contended that the investigation in the present case is already complete, however, charge has not been framed. There are 15 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution, hence, the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude. 5. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the facts as aforesaid, he however contends that he is not aware of the relationship of co-accused Yuvraj @ Ankit with injured-Pradeep Kumar. The period of custody of the petitioners, their clean antecedents, the stage of trial as well as the submissions regarding respective roles and absence of recovery from the petitioners herein are however not disputed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petitions. 7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and taking into consideration that there would be arguable issues with respect to involvement of the petitioners in commission of the offence, in the manner as alleged, their clean antecedents, the period of custody already undergone by them, their young age of 21 and 19 years respectively, absence of recovery from them as well as the stage of trial, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petitions. 8. The instant petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.19 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 216 (02 cases) CRM-M-27113-2026(O&M) & CRM-M-27371-2026 (O&M) 9. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. 10. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 19.05.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.19 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document