233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39190-2026 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 Harpreet Singh alias Harry …Petitioner vs. State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the complainant. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding to Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) with a prayer to grant the concession of regular bail to him in case FIR No.67 dated 27.03.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 109, 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Corresponding to Sections 323, 307, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860) and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused in the present case only due to political rivalry between the parties. He further submits that even Surjit Singh and Gursewak Singh, injured had suffered minor injuries and the offence under Section 109 of BNS has been wrongly added in the present case. He further contends that the HEMLATA 2026.07.24 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39190-2026 -2- petitioner and the complainant have resolved all their disputes and the matter has been compromised between them. Further, the injured in the present case have already been discharged from the hospital and are hale and hearty. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 05.05.2026 and no useful purpose will be served by keeping him behind bars. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and he has no objection in case the present petition is allowed by this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is not in dispute that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and there are bleak chances of conviction of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last more than 02 months. Thus, further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. 7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 23.07.2026 JUDGE hemlata Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HEMLATA 2026.07.24 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document