Pargat Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-632-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-632-2025 Date of Decision: 29.04.2025 PARGAT SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, Advocate and Mr. Vedant Setia, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This is a petition for regular bail filed under Section 483 BNSS in case FIR No. 35 dated 18.03.2024 under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 and 506 of IPC (Sections 325 and 326 of IPC was added later on vide Rapat No. 46 of 30.04.2024 ) registered at Police Station Lambi, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been alleged that the petitioner caused injury on left side of forehead of Baljinder Singh and the said injury was found to be grievous in nature. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.09.2024 and he be released on bail. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Ms. Ramta Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes Renu Rawat 2025.04.29 06:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-632-2025 -2the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are grievous in nature. She has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for 07 months and 07 days Learned State counsel further submits that out of 22 cited prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

In view of the above submission of learned counsels, since the trial is yet to commence and the same is likely to take time, the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 07 months and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 7.

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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order the applicant is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 29.04.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Renu Rawat 2025.04.29 06:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document