CRM-M-14230-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 202 CRM-M-14230-2026 Date of Decision: 07.08.2026 JOBAN SINGH @ JOBAN ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Ms. G.S.Mann, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anmol Jeevan Singh Gill, Advocate and Mr. Karandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1. This third petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS 2023 (Erstwhile Section 439 of CrPC) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.227 dated 10.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station. Ajnala, District Amritsar Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118, 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Erstwhile Section 323/324/506/148/149 of IPC) (Section 109, 118(2), 117(2) of BNS added later on) [Erstwhile Section 307/326/325 of IPC 1860]. 2. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner, Joban Singh, along with the other accused, was a member of an unlawful assembly and was armed with a datar. In furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, the accused persons attacked Jaswant Singh, Gursanjog Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Jagroop Singh and Karnail Singh. It is specifically alleged that the present petitioner, Joban Singh, gave a datar blow on the head of injured Jaswant RENU RAWAT 2026.08.07 16.29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-14230-2026 -2- Singh, which landed on the upper side of his right ear. Thereafter, the petitioner again inflicted blows with the reverse as well as the direct side of the datar, which struck Jaswant Singh on his right arm and shoulder. The injuries attributed to the petitioner were subsequently opined to be dangerous to life. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further submits that present case is a case of version and cross-version, wherein several persons from both sides sustained injuries, and the complainant has also been prosecuted in respect of the injuries suffered by the opposite party. It is argued that the complainant party, harboring a motive to take revenge against the petitioner and his family, subsequently introduced and fabricated certain injuries with a view to falsely implicate the petitioner and give an exaggerated colour to the occurrence. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.02.2025 and prays for grant of regular bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent–State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner has actively participated in the alleged occurrence. Ld. State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for the last 01 years , 05 months and 13 days and is not involved in any other case. He further submits that out of 23 cited prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far. RENU RAWAT 2026.08.07 16.29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-14230-2026 -3- 6. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record. 7. After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 years , 05 months and 13 days; he is not involved in any other case and out of 23 cited prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial. 8. 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/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 10. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 07.08.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.08.07 16.29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh