(PHHC010499052026) CRM-M-16512-2026 & another case 1 222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 CRM-M-16512-2026 SUKHWINDER SINGH ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CRM-M-19390-2026 TIRATH SINGH ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Adeshwar S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. This order shall dispose of two petitions i.e. CRM-M-16512- 2026 and CRM-M-19390-2026 as they arise out of the same FIR. 2. The prayer in the present petitions under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.57 dated 11.07.2024 registered under Sections 109 of BNS, 2023 (Section 307 of IPC, 1860) and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Mallanwala, District Ferozepur. KUSUM 2026.07.20 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh (PHHC010499052026) CRM-M-16512-2026 & another case 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the FIR was registered on account of a misunderstanding. However, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Though the petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders, they have subsequently surrendered and are now in custody since 02.03.2026. As none of the 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, they are entitled to the concession of bail. 4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners are grave. Sukhwinder Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-16512-2026) is alleged to have given a spade blow on the person of the complainant, whereas Tirath Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-19390-2026) is alleged to have fired a shot from his pistol at the complainant. Therefore, the nature of the allegations do not entitle them to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioners are in custody since 02.03.2026 but none of the 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the factum of a compromise having been arrived at between the parties and states that he has no objection, in case the petitioners are granted the concession of bail. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. KUSUM 2026.07.20 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh (PHHC010499052026) CRM-M-16512-2026 & another case 3 7. Admittedly, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. As the petitioners are in custody since 02.03.2026 but none of the 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, therefore, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioners is not required. 8. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners, namely, Sukhwinder Singh S/o Piara Singh and Tirath Singh S/o Sukhwinder SIngh are ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned upon furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds. 9. The petitions stand disposed of. 10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. 11. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 20.07.2026 kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No KUSUM 2026.07.20 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh