CRM-M-27884-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27884-2026 Angrej Singh @ Boki ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 27.07.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 28.07.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 28.07.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J :- 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. 37 dated 07.05. 2025 registered under Sections 118(2), 115(2), 351(2), 190 and 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Verka, District Amritsar. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27884-2026 -2- 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by the complainant-Manpreet Singh, alleging therein that on the evening of 05.04.2025, he was standing at Village Mundal Bus Stand when the petitioner, accompanied by the co-accused, reached there, being armed with weapons. Accused Sanju made an exhortation to catch the complainant and teach him a lesson. Thereafter, the present petitioner, who was carrying a kirpan, opened the same and assaulted the complainant by striking a blow with it on the right side of his head. Accused Randeep Singh struck another blow with a wooden danda on the backside of his head, thereby causing him to fall down. The other assailants then extended beatings to him and fled away when some other persons reached there. The complainant was taken to the hospital. The respectable members of the village tried to effect a compromise, but to no avail. Therefore, the complainant prayed for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of the FIR, formal investigation proceedings were initiated. As per the medical opinion, one of the injury as sustained by the victim had been opined to be grievous in nature. The petitioner was arrested on 18.02.2026. On the cross version of GDR No. 21 was entered on 30.05.2025, which was later on got cancelled. He suffered disclosure statement and in pursuance of the same, got recovered the sword used by him in the crime. Investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial will take considerable time to PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27884-2026 -3- conclude. Injuries have been wrongly attributed to him. He was never armed with any kirpan. A false recovery is planted. There is delay of two days in lodging of the FIR which has not been satisfactorily explained. In the CCTV footage of the occurrence, he is not seen carrying any kirpan. He is not required for further investigation. Infact, it were the members of the complainant party, who were the aggressors. The antecedents of the petitioner’s are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. It is argued by learned State counsel that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object of that unlawful assembly, is further alleged to have voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous injuries to the victim. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences against him, however, he has been in custody since 18.02.2026. The trial will obviously take considerable time to conclude since no prosecution witness has been examined so far. It is PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27884-2026 -4- well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing and that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial and it can neither be punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore and he has made out a case for his release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 28th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.28 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document