CRM-M-6359-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 CRM-M-6359-2026 Date of decision: 9th July, 2026 Amarjit Singh @ Palwan ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate with Mr. Rajat Narwal, 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), 15(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 pm on his motorbike for going to a shop for some work, and when he had reached near Gold Green Club, he found a K10 vehicle lying parked outside the club and four persons PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.09 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6359-2026 -2- were occupants 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 the petitioner and co-accused Amrit Pal Singh @ Amrit, 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. The petitioner and co-accused Amrit Pal Singh @ Amrit were formally arrested on 23.06.2025. Subsequently, some other persons were nominated as accused and had been arrested. investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded by the complainant. He was not named in the FIR. His nomination by the complainant was only on the basis of suspicion. He was in custody in some other case at the time of the incident. No recovery has been attributed to him. Neither any specific overt act has been attributed to him. He was PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.09 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6359-2026 -3- obviously not present at the spot as he was in jail. No evidence whatsoever has been collected during investigation to connect him with the commission of the subject offences. His involvement is on account of political rivalry. He is not required for further investigation as the same stands concluded. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying the benefit of bail to him, more so, when he is on bail in all such cases. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner was implicated on the allegation that he was involved in the conspiracy behind the occurrence and had facilitated the attack through unknown persons. While relying upon the status report, it is very clearly admitted by learned State counsel that no specific overt act was attributed to the petitioner, nor the petitioner was present at the spot. It is, however, argued that taking into consideration that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused and, pursuant thereto, some of the co-accused are alleged to have assaulted the victim and to have caused him as many as 18 injuries, some of which were collectively declared to be dangerous to life. The petitioner was, PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.09 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6359-2026 -4- however, named on the basis of suspicion. It has not come on record that, in fact, the petitioner had hatched any conspiracy with the co-accused who had assaulted the victim. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. He is in custody for a period of over one year. The trial will obviously take considerable time to conclude as even charges have not been framed in this case. The involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying the benefit of bail to him in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The further incarceration of the petitioner is not going to serve any useful purpose. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore and he has made out a case for his release on bail. 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. 8. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. 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