CRM-M-23170-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 CRM-M-23170-2026 Decided on : 20.07.2026 BHUPINDER SINGH @ GOLDI ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Manbir Singh Basra, Advocate, and Mr. Anupinder Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Lekhi, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate, for the complainant. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. The instant 2nd petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Bhupinder Singh alias Goldi, aged about 40 years 45 19.06.2025 118(1), 3(5) of BNS [sections 109, 118(2) of BNS added later on] (corresponding sections 324, 34, 307, 326 of IPC) Narot Jaimal Singh Pathankot LAVISHA 2026.07.20 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-23170-2026 2 2. First bail petition filed by the petitioner, i.e. CRM-M-49717- 2025, was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure P-6), with a direction to the trial court to firstly record the statement of injured namely Charanjiv, and any other material witness, including the complainant. 3. FIR was registered against accused, namely:- (i) Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi (present petitioner), (ii) Suram Singh @ Sonu, (iii) Chanchala Devi, and (iv) Raama Devi. As per the allegations, Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi caused injuries to complainant, namely Jaideep, and to his father Charanjiv Singh, aged about 78 years, with a datar. Another accused-Suram Singh @ Sonu, also inflicted a datar blow, which, as per the FIR, was caused on the right side of the eyebrow of Charanjiv. 4. As per the case of the prosecution, except for petitioner, namely Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi, all the other accused were found innocent during the course of investigation. Accordingly, challan was presented only against the petitioner. Subsequently, one more accused namely Suram Singh alias Sonu was summoned under section 319 of Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that primary allegation against the petitioner is that he inflicted a dattar blow on the right side of the nose of injured Charanjiv, aged about 78–80 years. It is further alleged that petitioner caused two dattar blows to the complainant/injured Jaideep, resulting in injuries on his left palm and left middle finger. LAVISHA 2026.07.20 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-23170-2026 3 6. Learned counsel contends that, as complainant-Jaideep is concerned, injuries attributed to the petitioner are on non-vital parts of the body. It is further submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.06.2025, i.e. for a period of more than one year and twenty days. 7. Counsel also points out that there is a version and cross- version arising out of the same occurrence. Cross-version was registered at the instance of the petitioner's wife, namely Savita Devi, vide GD No. 020 dated 21.06.2025, against six persons belonging to the complainant party, namely, Jaideep Singh, Charanjiv Singh, Abhimanyu Singh, Gagandeep Singh @ Love, Abhay Singh and Nirmala Devi. It is submitted that petitioner himself has suffered total seven injuries. 8. Seven injuries suffered by the petitioner, reads as under:- “1) Lacerated wound 1 cm length x 1 cm depth with 6 cm length red blue colour brown on left arm horizontal in direction. (Adv. Ortho Opinion). (2) Superficial incised wound 8 cm, on right upper back, transverse in direction. (3) Incised wound superficial 1cm on base of little finger left hand (Adv. X ray left hand, AP-Lat). (4) Incised wound superficial 1 cm on base of right finger left hand (Adv x ray left hand, AP-Lat). (5) Superficial lacerated wound 5 cm horizontal in direction, present on right cheek. (6) Incised wound superficial 2 cm on base of middle finger left hand (Adv x ray left hand, AP-  Lat) and (7) Complaint of pain on proximal 1/3rd and mid 1/3rd of left forearm. On examination ROM (+), No Singh external injury seen. (Adv Ortho opinion)” 9. It is further argued that offence under Section 307 IPC was incorporated in the present case subsequently, after a lapse of nearly two months, vide Rapat No.21 dated 16.08.2025. LAVISHA 2026.07.20 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-23170-2026 4 Learned counsel submits that petitioner has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration and material witnesses, including complainant and the injured witnesses, have already been examined. It is, therefore, contended that until the allegations are proved during trial, petitioner ought not to be kept in custody for an indefinite period. Thus, prayer is made for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the present petition, submit that injured Charanjiv is more than 78 years of age and, therefore, conduct allegedly exhibited by the accused party, including the petitioner, is highly reprehensible and does not warrant any leniency. It is further submitted that Charanjiv suffered three fractures on his face and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody undergone by the petitioner cannot be said to be sufficient to entitle him to the concession of regular bail. Thus, they jointly pray for dismissal of the present petition. 11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record available before it. 12. Admittedly, there is version and cross-version case, arising out of the same occurrence. On the side of the petitioner, two persons, namely, Bhupinder Singh @ Goldi (present petitioner) and co-accused Suram Singh @ Sonu, have been arrayed as accused. In the cross- version, which is also pending trial, petitioner himself is stated to have LAVISHA 2026.07.20 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-23170-2026 5 sustained seven injuries (referred here above). Trial in the both cases is underway. Petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a period of more than one year, and out of total 22 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined, so far. Thus, trial is not progressing at the desired pace. 13. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, including existence of version and cross-version, period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, the fact that material witnesses have been examined, and slow pace of the trial, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 14. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 15. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an LAVISHA 2026.07.20 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-23170-2026 6 independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 16. Petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 20.07.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO LAVISHA 2026.07.20 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh