Balwinder Singh @ Balwant Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 21.01.2025 Balwinder Singh @ Balwant Singh . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 323, 34 IPC and Sections 326, 201 IPC added later on, in case FIR No.227, dated 22.09.2019, registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, Punjab, during the pendency of trial.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per case of the prosecution, the role attributed to the petitioner is of causing rod blows to the complainant/ injured-Kuldeep Singh, on his right and left arm and the back. He further submits that no grievous injury has been suffered by the complainant. Petitioner further contends that there is no specific injury which can be fixed against the petitioner. Rather, at best, the petitioner can be said to have caused simple injury by rod. Also informs that the petitioner is not

-2involved in any other criminal activity and therefore prays for grant of regular bail.

4.

On the other hand, Mr. Amandeep S. Samra, learned AAG, Punjab, without disputing the factual assertions of the petitioner, submits that the instant FIR was registered in September, 2019 but the accused being on run could not be arrested and it is after affecting arrest of all the accused in the year 2024 that the investigation was completed and challan has also been submitted. However, learned State counsel does not dispute that custody of the petitioner is not of any useful purpose for the prosecution except for securing the presence of the petitioner in the proceeding before the trial Court. 5.

In view of the submissions addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as that of the learned State counsel and also the aspect that the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and further the fact that no grievous injury has been suffered by the injured with the rod blow given by the present petitioner, I find it appropriate to entertain the petitioner's plea for regular bail.

7.

Consequently, the prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

8.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

-39.

The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. 10.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE January 21, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No