CRM-M-30520-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219 CRM-M-30520-2026 Date of decision : 18 Date of uploading : 18 Lakhvir Singh @ Lakhveer Singh ………….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sandeep Godara, --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.087 dated 10.07.2025 under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS (Sections 118(2) & 117(2) of BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Shri Muktsar Sahib. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 03.01.2026. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the case in hand involves a version and cross-version. Learned counsel has further submitted that the challan, upon culmination of the investigation, already stands filed. Learned counsel has further submitted that the injured, who had sustained JATIN 2026.08.18 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30520-2026 (O&M) -2- the injury under Section 118 of the BNS (erstwhile Section 326 of the IPC), has since been discharged after receiving the requisite medical treatment. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 3. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit dated 15.07.2026, which is taken on record. The same be kept on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 17.08.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 4. I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 5. The petitioner was arrested on 03.01.2026 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 03.04.2026. Total 21 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6. As per custody certificate dated 17.08.2026 filed by learned JATIN 2026.08.18 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30520-2026 (O&M) -3- State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 07 months and 14 days & is shown to be involved in other cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. JATIN 2026.08.18 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30520-2026 (O&M) -4- (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2026.08.18 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document