CRM-M-3634-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 214 CRM-M-3634-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.07.2026 Jasbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Lovepreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.205 dated 05.10.2024, registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 332(c) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Division No.6, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Parveen Kumar, who has been running a shop under the name and style of "Friends Digital Studio" at Main Radha Swami Road, Arjan Nagar, Ludhiana, alleging therein that on 30.09.2024 at about 12:40 p.m., the petitioner-Jasbir Singh alias Bittu came to his shop and initially requested that his passport-size photograph be clicked. Thereafter, he asked the complainant to recharge his Airtel mobile number with a sum of Rs.349/. While the complainant was keeping his mobile phone back after completing the recharge, the petitioner took out a knife wrapped in a newspaper and launched a sudden MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.15 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3634-2026 (O&M) -2- attack upon him, repeatedly inflicting knife blows on his head, face and other parts of the body. The complainant alleged that despite his attempts to save himself and flee from the shop, the petitioner continued to assault him with the knife, causing multiple injuries, threatened to kill him and forcibly removed cash lying in the shop before fleeing from the spot after throwing his blood- stained shirt inside the premises. The complainant was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where first aid was administered and thereafter he was referred to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana, in view of the seriousness of the injuries. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceeding were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 16.09.2025 and has remained in judicial custody since then. Investigation now stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has remained in custody since 16.09.2025. There is an unexplained delay of five days in the registration of the FIR, which casts a serious doubt upon the prosecution story, particularly when the complainant himself has stated in the FIR that the report was lodged only after deliberations with his family. It is submitted that the delay indicates that the allegations have been fabricated after due consultation. It is further argued that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature, arising out of a monetary transaction. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had advanced money to the complainant and, whenever he demanded its repayment, the complainant threatened him and ultimately gave a criminal colour to the monetary dispute by lodging the present FIR with mala fide intentions. On the date of the alleged occurrence, he had merely requested the complainant to return the money, whereupon the complainant abused and threatened him, and MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.15 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3634-2026 (O&M) -3- thereafter falsely implicated him in the present case. The allegations in the FIR are improbable inasmuch as the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place in a shop situated in a busy market during broad daylight, yet no independent witness or neighbouring shopkeeper has supported the prosecution version. The petitioner has clean antecedents. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented before the Court. Conclusion of trial would take considerable time. His further incarceration would not serve any purpose. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. 4. Status report along with the custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. The petitioner is alleged to have inflicted multiple knife injuries upon the complainant and to have forcibly removed cash from his shop. It is not in dispute that during the course of investigation, the offence punishable under Section 118(2) of BNS has been deleted. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimony of the complainant and the medical evidence, both of which are matters to be appreciated by the trial Court during the course of trial. The contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the delay in registration of the FIR, the alleged monetary dispute between the parties and the absence of any independent witness are all issues which would be examined on the basis of evidence led before the trial Court and do not require any conclusive MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.15 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3634-2026 (O&M) -4- determination at this stage. However, without commenting upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice either side during trial, this Court finds that the petitioner has remained in custody since 16.09.2025 and the investigation in the case stands concluded. The challan has already been presented and, therefore, his further custodial interrogation is no longer required. The petitioner is stated to have clean antecedents and there is nothing on record to suggest that, if enlarged on bail, he is likely to abscond, tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses. The trial is yet to commence as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Continued incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period before conclusion of trial would not advance the cause of justice. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case. 7. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 15.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.15 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document