Raju v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Raju ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent 224-I Ankit Sharma ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent Date of Decision:- 13.05.2026

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Balram Prashar, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

***** SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral) 1.

Both these petitions have been filed by the petitioners, namely, Raju and Ankit Sharma seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.202 dated 31.10.2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 333, 324(4), 3(5)of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Jamalpur, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana.

2.

Allegations against the petitioners are that petitioners trespassed into complainant's house, armed with sword and chaff cutter and inflicted

( 2 ) injuries upon complainant's son and vandalized household articles of complainant's house.

3.

Learned counsel prayed for concession of bail to the petitioner(s) on the following grounds:

I.

The injuries allegedly suffered by the son of the complainant are simple in nature.

II.

The petitioners have been in custody for the last more than six months.

III.

Trial of the case will take sufficient time to conclude. 4.

Status report dated 14.04.2026 by way of an affidavit of Inderjit Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana along with custody certificate dated 12.05.2026 of the petitioner in CRM-M4027-2026, has been filed by learned State counsel and the same is taken on record.

5.

Learned State Counsel opposed the petition(s) on the following grounds:

I.

The petitioners have committed a serious offence, as they were armed with deadly weapons and inflicted injuries upon complainant's son.

II.

The occurrence is captured in CCTV footage.

III.

Though petitioner Ankit Sharma has a clean and clear antecedent, petitioner Raju has a criminal antecedent.

( 3 ) However, it was admitted by learned State counsel that injuries sustained by victim are simple in nature; the investigation stands complete; the case is now fixed before the trial Court for framing of charges. 6.

Ms. Nav Chahal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant in CRM-M-4027-2026 and has filed power of attorney, which is taken on record. She has opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) by submitting that the injuries caused to the son of the complainant are with a sword i.e. deadly weapon. 7.

Heard.

8.

Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds merits in the present petition on the following grounds:

I. That the injuries sustained are stated to be simple in nature. II. The investigation stands completed and the case is now fixed before the trial Court for framing of charges.

III. Petitioner Ankit Sharma has a clean and clear antecedent. IV. The petitioners have been behind bars since 02.11.2025 i.e. for the last more than 06 months.

V. Trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period.

9.

As concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment and it is a trite principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is a

( 4 ) rule, jail is an exception. Hence, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners. 10.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 11.

A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. ( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 13.05.2026 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No