REEMA SAINI 2026.07.22 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-30961 of 2026(O&M) son of unknown armed with Kirpan, Prahjot Singh son of unknown armed with khanda, Arshpreet Singh Dhaliwal son of unknown, Pushpinder Singh son of unknown armed with khanda along with 15-20 unknown persons in muffled faces came to ‘A to Z’ shop. In the presence of shop owner Rinku, Gautam proclaimed that they would make him pay for getting their pistol recovered. They all attacked him with their weapons and caused injuries. When he raised cries, his friend Sagarpreet Singh intervened, whereupon he too was hit and injured. When people started collecting, they fled the spot, threatening to kill them all. He was shifted to Government Hospital for treatment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1-Prabhjot Singh was attributed a simple injury while petitioner No.2 Arshpreet Singh Dhaliwal @ Arshpreet Singh was not attributed any injury in the FIR. Petitioners were in custody for the last almost 3 months. Investigation of the case was complete. Thus, it was prayed that petitioners be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit of Bachan Singh, PPS Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Sri Muktsar Sahib and has opposed the bail application on the ground that petitioner No.1 attacked the complainant armed with Khanda while petitioner No.2 was empty handed. Both actively participated in causing injuries to the victim. He, however, concedes that investigation of the case is complete. Learned State counsel further submits that both petitioners were involved in one other case and did not deserve the concession of bail. REEMA SAINI 2026.07.22 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-30961 of 2026(O&M) 5. Petitioners are behind bars for almost 3 months. Investigation is complete. Challan has been presented. Trial is likely to take long to conclude. Injuries suffered by the victims are simple in nature. In view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831 and Mulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2012) 2 SCC 382, involvement of petitioners in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny them the concession of bail. No useful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioners behind bars. In the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merits, petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 22.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI 2026.07.22 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh