CRM-M-38092-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38092-2026 Rajan Goyal @ Akshay ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 01.09.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 03.09.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 03.09.2026 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. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J :- Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.105 dated 30.09.2025, registered under Sections 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with subsequent addition of Sections 109, 118(2) and 61(2) of the BNS at Police Station Lakho Ke Behram, District Ferozepur. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement of PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.03 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38092-2026 -2- complainant-Beant Singh alleging that on 29.09.2025 at about 7:15 a.m., he was going towards the link road to Guddar Dhandi on his motorcycle. When he had proceeded about one and a half killas after crossing the dhani of Parminder Singh, a white-coloured car hit his motorcycle from behind, due to which he fell off the road. Three young men then came out of the car. They were armed with baseball bats, gandasi and other sharp weapons. One of them gave a baseball bat blow on the complainant's right leg near the knee and another pushed him down. Two of the assailants gave baseball bat blows on both his legs, while another attacked his head with a gandasi. The complainant tried to protect himself with his hands and arms. The complainant raised alarm, on hearing which, Karanbir Singh came running towards the spot. On seeing him, the three persons boarded the car and fled towards Guddar Dhandi. The complainant was taken to the hospital for treatment. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. 3. During investigation, the car used in the occurrence was found to be registered in the name of Jagandeep Singh. On 8.10.2025, the complainant recorded supplementary statement naming Jagandeep Singh and Lakhdeep Singh as the persons who caused injuries to him on the fateful day. On 28.10.2025, accused Lakhdeep Singh, who was already arrested in another case was arrested in present case through production warrants. On 29.10.2025, he suffered disclosure statement disclosing that the present petitioner was one of the assailants, on the basis of which the present petitioner was nominated as an accused. On 20.11.2025, the complainant recorded another supplementary statement to the effect that petitioner was one of the associates PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.03 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38092-2026 -3- and was making a video on his mobile when co-accused were inflicting injuries on him. The petitioner was arrested on 23.11.2025. Investigation now stands concluded and challan has been filed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co- accused Lakhdeep Singh, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. It is further submitted that the supplementary statement of the complainant naming the petitioner was recorded after about 50 days of the occurrence. No specific injury has been attributed to him and nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as none out of 14 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. He has been in custody since 23.11.2025. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. The involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner as well as his criminal antecedents, he does not deserve to be released on bail. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed 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. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.03 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38092-2026 -4- 7. The petitioner is alleged to have participated in the occurrence; however, as per the prosecution case, the role attributed to him is confined to capturing the video recording of the occurrence on his mobile phone. The petitioner is in custody since 23.11.2025. Though charges have already been framed, no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Thus, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is presently not involved in any other case. 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 3rd September, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.03 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document