Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34019 (PNJ)

SAJAN @ SAJAN KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/29173/2026 · 2026-07-28

H S Grewal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-29173-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 CRM-M-29173-2026 Date of decision : 28.07.2026 SAJAN @ SAJAN KUMAR ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Aakash Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate and Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.14 dated 15.01.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 191(3) and 190 of BNS, 2023 (Section 117(4) of BNS was added later on) (corresponding Sections 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 IPC), at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, attacked the complainant with deadly weapons. It is alleged that the petitioner first attempted to inflict a baseball bat blow on the complainant's head but the complainant saved himself by raising his hand. Thereafter, the SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.28 17.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-29173-2026 -2- petitioner allegedly hit the complainant on his right leg below the knee with a baseball bat which resulted into a fracture. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is an unexplained delay of 04 days in lodging the FIR as the alleged occurrence took place on 11.01.2026 but the FIR in question was registered on 15.01.2026. He also submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 03 months & 01 day and co-accused Vikram Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court in CRM- M-12921-2026 on 18.04.2026 (Annexure P-2). Although the petitioner is involved in another case but the same pertains to an offence punishable under Sections 316, 318, 351(2), 351(3) BNS and Section 66 IT Act. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as challan is yet to be presented. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 03 months & 01 day. He, upon instructions, submits that challan is yet to be presented. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the concession of regular bail to the petitioner as the injury attributed to him is grievous in nature. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.28 17.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-29173-2026 -3- 8. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 03 months & 01 day, co-accused has already been granted bail and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude as challan is yet to be presented, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. 9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 10. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) July 28, 2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.28 17.20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh