CRM-M-24442-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 CRM-M-24442-2026 Date of decision: 17th July, 2026 Parmeshwar Kumar @ Parmeshwar and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the complainant. *** 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. 56 dated 19.02.2026 registered under Sections 109, 126(2), 118(1), 118(2), 190 and 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant- Shubham alleging therein that on 18.02.2026, he along with his brother Satyam was going towards the house of his friend PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.17 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24442-2026 -2- when, on the way, they were waylaid by petitioner No.1, accused Pankaj, and one unknown person, all of whom were armed with weapons. Petitioner No.1 made an exhortation to teach a lesson to the complainant and opened the assault upon him by striking a blow with a datar (machete) on the head of the complainant. In the meanwhile, petitioner No.2-Sonu, accompanied by the other co-accused also reached there and he too struck a blow with a punch on the chest of the complainant. His brother, who rushed to his rescue, also sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants. On an alarm being raised, the assailants fled from the spot. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Two of the injuries found on the person of the complainant have been opined to be grievous in nature. The petitioners were arrested on 05.03.2026. Investigation now stands completed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are in custody since 22.02.2026. In fact, it is a case of version and cross-version, as on 18.02.2026, the complainant and his accomplices had caused as many as six injuries to petitioner No.1, out of which one injury has been opined to be grievous in nature. A cross-case has been registered against the complainant on the basis of the complaint made by petitioner No.1 on 21.02.2026. The petitioners were not members of the aggressor party and in fact, it is a case of free fight where members of both the parties have sustained injuries. The complainant and one Rohit Kumar nominated as accused in the cross-case, have been extended the PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.17 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24442-2026 -3- benefit of anticipatory bail. A compromise has been arrived at between the parties, which has been reduced into writing. The further incarceration of the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has affirmed the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and has also raised no serious objection to the allowing of the present petition. 6. Learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report, on the other hand, has vehemently argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, they do not deserve to be extended the benefit of regular bail. 7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 8. The petitioners are alleged to have formed part of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and, in prosecution of the common object thereof, are alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant. Specific injuries have been attributed to the petitioners. No relevance can be attached to the factum of a compromise having been effected between the parties at this stage. However, it is a case of version and cross-version where members of both the parties have sustained injuries. The investigation stands concluded. Obviously, the chances of conclusion of the trial in the near future are bleak. As such, no fruitful purpose PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.17 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24442-2026 -4- would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody any longer. Their antecedents are also stated to be clean. Taking into consideration the above- discussed facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody anymore and they have made out a case for their release on bail. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to their 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 17th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.17 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document