229 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33445-2026 Date of Decision:06.07.2026 Vishal …Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Param Preet Singh Brar, Advocate with Mr. Vishal Tartyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, Sr.DAG, Punjab. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.145, dated 03.10.2025 registered under Sections 109(1), 117(2), 115(2), 191(3), 190, 238 of B.N.S {Sections 307, 325, 323, 148, 149 and 201 of IPC}, at Police Station Jaitu, District Faridkot, Punjab (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been wrongly named in the present F.I.R by alleging that he was carrying a baseball bat and had caused injuries to Shivam and Mamta. Learned counsel further submits that two other co-accused namely Beant Singh @ Pommi and Kala @ Mandeep Kumar have already been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide orders (Annexures P-2 and P-3), respectively. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 15.10.2025 and is in custody for the last about 08 HITESH 2026.07.07 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-33445-2026 -2 months. The charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioner on 07.04.2026 and no witness has been examined so far. He further submits that the injured namely Mamta and Shivam have already been discharged from the hospital. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner, however, he admits that the petitioner is a first offender. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. In the present case, two co-accused namely Beant Singh @ Pommi and Kala @ Mandeep Kumar have already been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide orders (Annexures P-2 and P-3), respectively. The petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last about eight months and no witness has been examined so far. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner may tamper with the prosecution evidence or there are chances of absconding from the process of law. Thus, the further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 06.07.2026 JUDGE hitesh HITESH 2026.07.07 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh