CRM-M-16972-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (300) CRM-M-16972-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:08.07.2026 LAKHBIR SINGH … Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Sidhant Vermani, Advocate for the petitioner. (Through V.C.) Mr. Gurpratap Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Kesar Arora, Advocate with Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present is the first petition instituted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to the erstwhile Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking the concession of regular bail in the cross-version registered against the petitioners vide GD No. 46 dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 109, 125, 333, 305, 118(1), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act (corresponding to Sections 307, 336, 452, 380, 324, 146, 148 and 149 IPC), arising out of the main case registered vide FIR No. 260 dated 21.10.2025 under Sections 103, 125, 118(1), 191(3) and 190 of the GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16972-2026 (O&M) -:2:- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act (corresponding to Sections 302, 336, 146, 148 and 149 IPC) at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1). 2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of co-accused Jasbir Singh, alleging that the complainant in the present cross-version, namely Rachhpal Singh, son of Late Kuldeep Singh, along with the other accused, attacked the petitioners and their family members while they were present in their house on the date of the occurrence. It is alleged that Rachhpal Singh was armed with a kirpan, while the remaining accused were armed with deadly weapons, including dattars, pistols and a gun. During the alleged assault, the petitioners' father, Hari Singh, sustained fatal injuries and was murdered. According to the prosecution, the accused thereafter procured false injuries on their own persons and, after a delay of 17 days, succeeded in getting the present cross-version registered on 13.11.2025. It is further alleged that DDR No. 45 dated 13.11.2025 initially recorded that the allegations contained in the proposed cross-version appeared suspicious and warranted a detailed enquiry. However, subsequently, in alleged connivance with the local police, Rachhpal Singh and the other accused succeeded in securing the registration of the present cross-version vide GD No. 46 dated 13.11.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the investigating agency itself initially entertained serious doubts regarding the veracity of the cross-version, as is evident from the contemporaneous GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16972-2026 (O&M) -:3:- record. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for more than four months and twenty-seven days, the investigation stands concluded, and the challan has already been presented before the competent Court. It is further contended that the injury attributed to the petitioner is on a non-vital part of the body, and the injured has since been discharged from the hospital. Accordingly, it is argued that no useful purpose would be served by further incarcerating the petitioner pending trial. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant, vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and disclose his active participation in the occurrence. It is contended that the victim is a minor girl, who sustained grievous injuries during the incident, and the injuries attributed to the petitioner, read in conjunction with those allegedly inflicted by the co-accused, have been opined to be grievous in nature. It is, therefore, argued that having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the injuries, and the seriousness of the offences alleged, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail and the present petition merits dismissal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the paper book with their able assistance. 5.1. The custody certificate tendered by learned State counsel is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner himself is stated to GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16972-2026 (O&M) -:4:- have sustained injuries in the occurrence. He has remained in judicial custody for more than four months and twenty-seven days, the investigation stands concluded, and the challan has already been presented. The injury specifically attributed to the petitioner is on a non- vital part of the body. Furthermore, the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner pending trial would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- 1. The applicant-petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency. 2. The applicant-petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall he attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. 3. The applicant-petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16972-2026 (O&M) -:5:- 4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the applicant-petitioner her permanent residential address as well as his present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5. The applicant-petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, his Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of his immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6. The applicant-petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in her residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change. 7. The applicant-petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless her personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or her unauthorized absence GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16972-2026 (O&M) -:6:- from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. 7. In view of the fact that the principal matter stands finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 08.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.09 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document