CRM-M-36717-2026 1 281 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36717-2026 Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 INDERJIT SINGH ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 63 dated 19.03.2023, registered under Sections 323, 307, 201, 427, 341, 148 and 149 IPC (Sections 307, 201 and 427 IPC having been added subsequently), at Police Station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala. It is further prayed that the petitioner may alternatively be granted interim regular bail for a period of 30 days to facilitate the treatment/surgery of his father, who is suffering from a large liver cyst/tumor. 2. As per the prosecution version, the complainant Karandeep Singh stated that on 18.03.2023 at about 06:30 p.m., he along with his friends Karan Kumar and Gobinda was going towards Kanjli Bein on motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-09-AJ-3625. When they reached near the Fish Farm on Kanjli Road, two persons, namely the present petitioner Inderjit Singh, armed with a kirch, and Ramandeep Sandhu, also armed with a kirch, allegedly came on a motorcycle and signalled them to stop. At that time, three more KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.05 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36717-2026 2 motorcycles carrying about eight other persons, who were allegedly armed with kirches and datars, also reached the spot. It is alleged that the accused persons stopped the complainant and his companions, whereupon the petitioner Inderjit Singh raised a lalkara exhorting the other accused to catch the complainant and his companions and kill them. On hearing the same, Karandeep Singh and Gobinda allegedly tried to run away. The petitioner allegedly chased the complainant and inflicted a kirch blow on the back of his left shoulder, whereas co-accused Ramandeep Sandhu allegedly inflicted a kirch blow upon Gobinda under his left arm. The prosecution further alleges that the accused persons caught hold of Karan Kumar and started assaulting him with sharp-edged weapons. The petitioner and co-accused Ramandeep Sandhu are also alleged to have inflicted injuries upon Karan Kumar. When Karandeep Singh and Gobinda attempted to flee from the spot, Ramandeep Sandhu allegedly inflicted another kirch blow upon Karandeep Singh, which hit him on his back. The accused persons thereafter allegedly continued assaulting Karan Kumar with their knives and other deadly weapons. The complainant thereafter reached a safe place and informed his brother Sharanjit Singh @ Sunny, who came to the spot and got him admitted to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala, for treatment. As per the complainant, the motive behind the occurrence was previous enmity between Karan Kumar and the accused persons. On the basis of the statement of Karandeep Singh, present FIR came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been in custody in the present FIR since 19.04.2024, when he was arrested through production KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.05 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36717-2026 3 warrants. It is submitted that prior thereto, the petitioner was already in custody in FIR No. 243 dated 10.08.2023 under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, since 19.08.2023. Thus, the petitioner has remained in continuous custody for a substantial period. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that as per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner is attributed only one injury upon complainant Karandeep Singh, allegedly caused with a kirch on the back of his left shoulder. The said injury is stated to be simple in nature and no other specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no MLR of injured Karan Kumar, whereas the MLRs of complainant Karandeep Singh and injured Gobinda have been placed on record. It is further submitted that several co-accused, namely Balwinder Singh @ Bhinda, Malkit Pal @ Pallo, Amarjit @ Vicky and Vijay @ Kalu, who were named in the FIR, have been found innocent during investigation. It is contended that the same casts doubt upon the prosecution version and supports the petitioner’s plea that he has been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity. 3.2 Learned counsel submits that the investigation already stands completed, the challan was presented on 22.07.2024 and charges were framed on 29.09.2024. However, despite lapse of considerable time, the material prosecution witnesses have not been appearing before the learned Trial Court and coercive process has also been issued against them. Thus, there has been no meaningful progress in the trial and, considering that the prosecution has cited a number of witnesses, the trial is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. Continued incarceration of the petitioner, KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.05 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36717-2026 4 therefore, would serve no useful purpose and would also impinge upon his right to speedy trial. 3.3 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s father, Balbir Singh, has been diagnosed with a large cystic mass in the liver for which surgery is required. It is submitted that the petitioner is the only son and there is no other person available to look after his father. The petitioner’s mother is also an aged lady and remains unwell. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already been granted interim bail for a period of one month by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court vide order dated 27.05.2026 in FIR No. 243 dated 10.08.2023, thereby enabling him to attend to the medical needs of his father. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had earlier approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, for grant of regular bail, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2026. 3.4 Learned counsel further submits that, apart from FIR No. 243 dated 10.08.2023 under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and he has not been declared a proclaimed offender. It is submitted that the petitioner has already been granted interim bail in the said case and there is no allegation that he misused the concession so granted. 3.5 Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation, undertakes to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court, shall not influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence and shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction without prior permission of the Court. Accordingly, grant of regular bail has been prayed KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.05 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36717-2026 5 for. In the alternative, interim regular bail for a period of 30 days has been sought to facilitate the treatment/surgery of the petitioner’s father. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab. has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 28.08.2026, issued by Superintendent Jail, M.C. Jail, Kanda, Shimla (HP), which is taken on record. Status report by way of affidavit of DSP, Sub Division Kapurthala, District Kapurthala on behalf of respondent/State has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record, copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel opposite. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is attributed an active role in the occurrence, including raising a lalkara and causing a kirch blow to complainant Karandeep Singh and Karan Kumar. It is further submitted that the allegations are serious in nature and the petitioner is also involved in FIR No. 243 dated 10.08.2023 under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 6.1 Learned State counsel fairly submits that the medical condition of the petitioner’s father stands duly substantiated from the report dated 01.09.2026 issued by the Senior Medical Officer, In-charge, Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. It is submitted that as per the said report, the petitioner’s father has been found to be suffering from Hepatic Cyst/Hydatid Cyst requiring surgery and, after the operation, an attendant would be urgently required. 7. Be that as it may, considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioner, who has remained in custody since 19.04.2024, KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.05 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36717-2026 6 and the fact that the investigation stands completed, challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court and charges have already been framed, the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. It is further noticed that none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, despite the charges having been framed on 29.09.2024, and the material witnesses have not been appearing before the learned Trial Court even after issuance of coercive process. Thus, the trial is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion and the petitioner cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period merely on account of the pendency of the trial. It is also significant that the specific role attributed to the petitioner is of having caused a kirch injury to complainant Karandeep Singh on his left shoulder, which injury is stated to be simple in nature, and no specific injury has otherwise been attributed to him. Further, some of the co-accused named in the FIR have been found innocent during investigation. Another relevant circumstance is that the medical condition of the petitioner’s father stands duly substantiated by the report dated 01.09.2026 issued by the Senior Medical Officer, In- charge, Civil Hospital, Kapurthala, wherein it has been opined that the petitioner’s father is suffering from Hepatic Cyst/Hydatid Cyst requiring surgery and would require an attendant after the operation. In these circumstances, keeping in view the period of incarceration already undergone, the stage of the trial and reluctance of complainant and witnesses to depose who had not come present despite issuing coercive process against them multiple times and are intentionally delaying disposal of trial, the nature of the role attributed to the petitioner and the genuine medical circumstances of his KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.05 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36717-2026 7 father, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose 8. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency. 2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. 3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.05 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36717-2026 8 4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change. 7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 02.09.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.09.05 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh