CRM-M-2961-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217-2 CRM-M-2961-2026 Date of decision: 9th July, 2026 Mandeep Singh Punia @ Mandeep @ Monu Punia ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepinder Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 109 dated 20.06.2025 registered under Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 61(2), 149, 190, 191(3) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station City-2, Khanna, District Ludhiana. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by the complainant- Amandeep Singh, alleging therein that on the same night, he had left his house at about 8.30 p.m. on his motorbike for going to a shop for some work, and when he had reached near PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.09 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2961-2026 -2- Gold Green Club, he found a K10 vehicle lying parked outside the club and four persons were occupant of the same. While the complainant was returning home, he found those very persons riding in their vehicle. They intercepted the motorbike of the complainant and stopped him. They alighted from their vehicle and caught hold of the complainant. They were armed with weapons and opened an attack upon him with intent to kill him. The complainant was injured. He raised clamour, on hearing which several persons reached there, and then the accused fled from the spot in their vehicle. He prayed for taking action against the unknown culprits while being admitted to the hospital. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the complainant recorded his supplementary statement on the same day, suspecting that accused Amrit Pal Singh @ Amrit and Amarjit Singh @ Palwan, had a hand in the crime. They were nominated as accused. Both these accused were lodged in custody in other cases. Their presence was secured by issuance of production warrants, and they were formally arrested on 23.06.2025. 4. As per the further allegations, on 23.06.2025 itself, a secret information was received that Ekam Singh @ Gunni was also involved in the crime. He was nominated as such. He was arrested on the same day. On interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that accused Lovpreet Singh, Karan, Taran and Vipan along with one person whose name was not known to him, had conspired and had assaulted the complainant. He also disclosed that all five of them had taken an Alto K10 vehicle from one PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.09 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2961-2026 -3- Satnam Singh, had put a fake number plate on the said vehicle and had parked that vehicle in his village. He disclosed that on 22.06.2025, he, along with accused Lovpreet Singh, had come to check that vehicle and was allured by Lovpreet Singh to pick up that vehicle and take it back to village Otalan. He also disclosed that Premveer, the Sarpanch of the village, had due intimation about the entire incident. On the basis of this disclosure, the above-named Karan, Lovpreet Singh, Taran, Vipan, Satnam Singh, Premveer and Satnam Singh were nominated as accused along with one unknown person. The Alto K10 vehicle having a fake number plate was recovered at the instance of accused Ekam. The accused Premveer and Satnam Singh were subsequently arrested. On 24.06.2025, the petitioner was nominated as accused and was arrested on 26.08.2025. He was identified by the complainant as one of the persons, who had extended beatings to him with a stick. The petitioner too suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. The investigation qua the petitioner and the other accused who had been arrested stands concluded. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR or even in the supplementary statement of the complainant. He was nominated on the basis of the statement recorded by Jaspreet Singh, brother of the complainant, on 26.06.2025, to the effect that accused Premveer had told him that the petitioner, along with the four accused, had assaulted the complainant on the asking of Iqbalpreet Singh. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.09 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2961-2026 -4- There is no disclosure statement of accused Paramvir indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. The falsity of the case can be discerned from the fact that at the time of lodging the FIR, the complainant had alleged involvement of only four persons, including the driver, in the commission of the subject offences, and it was only at a later stage that the number of accused was increased to five to facilitate false nomination of the accused. His test identification parade was never done. The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, while deciding his application for grant of regular bail, had specifically observed that the petitioner was got identified by the complainant only at that time through video conferencing. He is in custody since 26.11.2025. He is not required for the purpose of investigation. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. As per the allegations, all the injuries sustained by the victim were caused by a sharp-edged weapon, whereas recovery of a danda has been planted upon him. His antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. No specific injury had been opined to be dangerous to life and the injuries sustained by the victim had been collectively opined to be dangerous to life. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, thus, argued that he deserves to be released on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve the benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.09 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2961-2026 -5- 7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 8. The petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor in the supplementary statement of the injured complainant, who had specifically recorded that four persons, including the driver of the Alto K10 vehicle, had assaulted him. He was named subsequently by the brother of the complainant, who was not an eyewitness to the occurrence. The status report, as filed by the respondent-State, does not even clearly say as to how the petitioner was nominated as an accused. No proper proceedings for test identification parade of the petitioner are shown to have been conducted by the investigating agency. No sharp-edged weapon has been recovered at the instance of the accused. It is only on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion qua the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the subject offences can be drawn. No doubt, the victim is shown to have suffered as many as 18 injuries in the occurrence, which collectively have been opined to be dangerous to life. However, it is also revealed that the details of the injuries suffered by the complainant had not been described earlier, and it is only on passing of an order by the trial Court to constitute a Medical Board of doctors that the opinion regarding the injuries had been given after a gap of five months from the date of occurrence. The petitioner is not required for further investigation as the same stands concluded. His antecedents are clean. In the circumstances peculiar to this case, the pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner is not required. It is well PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.09 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2961-2026 -6- settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing and that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and it can neither be punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 10. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 9th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.09 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document